Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PEABODY DONATION FUND BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

BILL PRESENTED

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the British Transport Commission," presented by Mr. Woodburn; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Airline Pilots (Service Conditions)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether British European Airways are observing the award given by the Industrial Court on conditions of service for airline pilots; and whether, when appointing associate companies to run certain internal airlines on their behalf, it has been made a condition that these associated companies shall observe the award of the Industrial Court.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): The answer to the first part of the question is, "Yes, Sir"; and to the second part, "No, Sir." The terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by all companies operating under associate arrangements with the Corporation are governed by Section 41 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Are we to take it that the Government do not regard conditions under which pilots work in the Corporation as being so much better than those in private firms and ought not the Ministry to insist on as good conditions?

Mr. Lindgren: These conditions are insisted on as part of the statute. The statute also lays down the machinery by which those responsible on the trade union side of the industry ensure that the conditions are being observed.

Welsh Advisory Council

Mr. Watkins: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why the Welsh Advisory Council on Civil Aviation were not consulted or advised about the restoration of the Cardiff-Weston air service; and whether this will be done in future in connection with any civil aviation services in Wales.

Mr. Lindgren: The answer to the first part of the Question is that the Welsh Advisory Council were so advised. As to the second part of the Question, I am informed by the British European Airways Corporation that they will, as far as practicable, consult the Council about any future alterations of civil air services in Wales.

Mr. Watkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Welsh Advisory Council were not consulted as he has suggested, but merely informed about it? Is he further aware of the fact that the Council were not informed until Members of this House were informed at a private deputation?

Mr. Lindgren: I do not want to come into conflict with my hon. Friend, but the facts are that the Welsh Advisory Council asked for reconsideration of the discontinuance of the service. A reply was sent on 15th March by the Chairman of B.E.A. to the Chairman of the Advisory Council, and it was not until May that the final decision was made. They were informed in March of what was going to happen, and this House was not informed until May.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that civil air services are at present non-existent in Wales, and will he consult with this elaborately set up Council in order to get something going?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, I will consult, but I am not very sanguine as to the result so far as the provision of services is concerned.

Mr. Price-White: Is the Minister aware that the supplementary question asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts) is perfectly correct, that there are no services in Wales and that the Welsh Advisory Council appear to be merely a sop to Welsh opinion; and has he any plans for Welsh aviation or is he satisfied that we still travel about in coracles?

Mr. Lindgren: When, in fact, there is a proved demand for services that demand will be satisfied.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Does that answer mean that these services can use almost any airport without consulting any body or the hon. Gentleman's own Department?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. This is a body, advisory to the British European Airways Corporation, set up with the intention that Welsh public opinion on these matters, especially on air services for that area, should be expressed to the Corporation.

U.S.S.R. TREATY OBLIGATIONS (PROTESTS)

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on how many occasions His Majesty's Government have protested to the Government of the U.S.S.R. since the end of the war on the grounds of violation by the latter of treaty obligations; and if he will specify each incident in respect of which protests have been so made.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): I regret that a list of occasions on which representations have been made to the Soviet Government and their representatives abroad on account of failure to fulfil international treaty obligations could not be given within the limits of a Parliamentary Question and reply. The House has been kept currently informed of all these unfortunate events.

Major Lloyd: While appreciating the Minister's reply and all that it implies, may I ask him if he is aware that the American Foreign Relations Committee have published 37 violations of treaties

by the Soviet Union, and could we not have some information recorded in HANSARD such as the American Senators have obtained from their Government?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. I do not think it is called for. It would be hard to compress three long years like that into HANSARD.

Professor Savory: Would not the hon. Gentleman be able to tell us briefly what protests have been made against the annexation of territory in violation of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty?

Mr. Speaker: Allegations against a country with which we are in friendly relationship ought not to be made.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that what was published by the American State Department consisted of allegations which have not yet been proved?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Dr. Josef Gotz (Detention)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Dr. Josef Gotz was handed over by us to the French Government in December, 1946, since when he has been kept in prison at Rue du Cheche-Midi, in Paris; that he was examined for the first time on 3rd May, 1948, nearly 18 months after being handed over; and whether he will now demand his return to the British zone of Germany in accordance with the laws laid down by the C.C.G.

Mr. Mayhew: I am aware that Dr. Gotz was handed over by the British authorities in Germany to the French, in December, 1946. I am informed that he was first examined on 12th December, 1946. The British authorities asked for his return to the British zone of Germany on 10th June, 1948.

Mr. Stokes: Can I take it that since this Question has been put down some action has been taken, and that my hon. Friend will persist in it, until this man is either dealt with or set free and sent back to Germany?

Mr. Mayhew: The action was taken before this Question was put down. We are awaiting a reply from the French authorities.

Lower Saxony (Minister President)

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Herr Kopf has resigned his appointment as Prime Minister of Land Niedersachen.

Mr. Mayhew: Herr Kopf is still the Minister President of Lower Saxony. He and his coalition Cabinet resigned on 11th March, owing to the failure of the coalition parties to reach agreement on the proposed land reform legislation. At the request of the regional commissioner, however, Herr Kopf remained in office as acting-Minister President, in order to form a new Cabinet. This he did on 9th June, since when he remains Minister President.

Mr. Vane: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that Herr Kopf who, I believe, is a Socialist, has protested vehemently against the British Government's ideas of what the agricultural policy for Germany should be, particularly the interference with the present lay out of farms, which will mean a big drop in agricultural production?

Mr. Mayhew: Those are the allegations but they are not the view of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Vane: They are the views of Herr Kopf.

Mr. Pickthorn: Could the House be informed by the laying of papers in the Library or otherwise what were the proposals here in dispute and what were Herr Kopf's objections to them?

Mr. Mayhew: Information has been laid in the Library about the Land Reform Ordinance. If further information can be given, I will certainly look into the matter.

Czech Refugees (Camp Conditions)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to improve the conditions in German and Austrian camps of refugees from Czechoslovakia.

Mr. Mayhew: I am informed that 162 Czech refugees in the British zones of Germany and Austria have already been recruited for employment in the United

Kingdom, or have obtained visas independently; and that the balance of about 80 are now under examination. These refugees are in Preparatory Commission of the International Refugee Organisation camps and my right hon. Friend does not consider that special steps are required regarding their living conditions.

Mr. Fletcher: Is not my hon. Friend aware that Members of this House receive numerous communications about the conditions in those camps from Czech refugees?

Mr. Mayhew: I will certainly look into individual instances.

Mr. Sorensen: While I endorse the implications of the Question by my hon. Friend, may I ask whether the Minister can say approximately how many of these refugees are in Austrian or German camps?

Mr. Mayhew: I could not give the division between Austrian and German camps without notice.

Mr. Stokes: Are not the vast majority of these refugees in the American zone? Will not the Minister make representations until conditions there improve, because they are at present deplorable?

Mr. Mayhew: We are in touch with the authorities of the United States on the general question of Czech refugees.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: How do the conditions in which these refugees are living compare with the conditions under which people are living who have been in displaced persons' camps for a good many years?

Mr. Mayhew: They have the same conditions as other persons eligible for I.R.O. care and maintenance.

National Democratic Party, Soviet Zone

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what protests have been made in the Control Council for Germany to support the complaint that well-known ex-Nazis are being recruited into the National Democratic Party in the Soviet zone of Germany in breach of the Potsdam Agreement; and with what results.

Mr. Mayhew: The Control Council for Germany has not met since 20th March,


when Marshal Sokolovsky walked out of the meeting. At a meeting of the deputy-commandants in Berlin on 28th April, the British representative pointed out to his Soviet colleague that the "National Zeitung," which has now become the organ of the National Democratic Party, had publicly stated that the purposes of this new party were to provide a means of political expression for former members of the Nazi Party. To rectify this violation of Control Council Law No. 2 and the purposes of the Allied Occupation of Germany, the British representative proposed that a Four-Power Commission should be set up to investigate the activities of the "National Zeitung." The Soviet representative refused to accept this proposal, and on 16th June the National Democratic Party was licensed by the Soviet military authorities.

Milk Supply, Berlin (Children)

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken to provide an alternative supply of milk for the children of Berlin in view of the fact that fresh milk previously provided by the U.S.S.R. was cut off by them on 23rd June.

Mr. Mayhew: There are sufficient stocks of tinned liquid evaporated and full cream dried milk for the use of children in Berlin. The provision of a further continuing supply has been arranged.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: Can special representations be made about this to the Soviet Government? Surely, it is desirable to do something of that kind?

Mr. Mayhew: For several months past we have built up sufficient stocks, and I do not think there is cause for anxiety on the subject.

Mr. Rankin: Can my hon. Friend give the House any idea of how long the stocks will last?

Mr. Mayhew: I cannot do so because it involves speculations of a wide character.

Food Storage

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the order issued by the U.S.S.R. on 24th June interdicting the

storing of food for the Western Sector of Berlin within the U.S.S.R. Sector means in effect that cold storage is now impossible because all refrigerator plant lies within the U.S.S.R. Sector; and what steps he is taking to meet this difficulty.

Mr. Mayhew: Cold storage facilities in the three Western Sectors are adequate to meet present needs.

Electricity Stoppage, Berlin

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Berlin workers have been thrown out of employment as a result of the cutting off of electrical current by the U.S.S.R. from the three Western Sectors.

Mr. Mayhew: I regret that it is not possible to give any satisfactory estimate, since firms suffering from electricity cuts and shortages of raw materials have encouraged their workers to take any paid holidays which are due to them.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: Will my hon. Friend go further than he gone so far, further than merely saying that we intend to remain in Berlin and say that we intend to see that the people of Berlin are supplied with the food, the fuel and the materials which are required for their health and employment?

Mr. Blackburn: May I, in reinforcing what my hon. Friend has just said, ask the Minister whether, in view of the obviously worsening situation in Berlin and yesterday's statement by the Secretary of State for Air that we cannot supply Berlin by air, he will try to get the Foreign Secretary to make an early statement in order to clear up doubts on this matter?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not accept all the implications of those two supplementary questions, but I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend to consider that.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the tremendous concern displayed about the civilian population of Berlin, will the Minister give a definite undertaking that this country will never bomb Berlin again?

War Plant, Spandau (Destruction)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date, and by whom, were instructions given to


destroy the office buildings of the Deutsche Werke at Spandau; and whether he is aware that they could have provided accommodation for civilian population equal to that of upwards of 100 flats.

Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend appears to be misinformed. There are no separate office buildings at the Deutsche Werke at Spandau. The offices formed a portion of the Hindenberg factory building, the destruction of which as a category I war plant was ordered by the responsible Control Commission authorities in October, 1947. I am informed that the conversion into flats of these offices which were themselves badly damaged was impracticable and that the German authorities concerned agreed with this view.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that it was the German authorities themselves who asked me to go and see the place in course of demolition and that they asserted that it could have been converted?

Mr. Gallacher: How could the hon. Member know when he was in the House here?

Mr. Stokes: What is it to do with the hon. Member anyway. It is too late to act on that now, but will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that buildings which can be used for civilian occupation in Berlin are not quite arbitrarily knocked down because some incompetent person took a decision months or years ago?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not agree that it was a wrong decision or that it was incompetently taken. On the first point, the German authorities agree with the statement I have given.

Pacifist Organisations

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many peace and pacifist organisations have been licensed in our zone of Germany; and how many have applied but have been refused a licence.

Mr. Mayhew: Up till 15th January, licences were granted to six peace and pacifist organisations and, to the best of my knowledge, only one application was refused. Since that date, these organisations have not had to obtain a licence from Military Government but only to register with the German authorities.

Disabled ex-Service Men (Pensions)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what pensions are provided for disabled German ex-Service men; and at what approximate annual cost to the British taxpayer.

Mr. Mayhew: In the British and United States zones, pensions are granted under the Industrial Accidents Insurance Scheme. The maximum pension is 100 marks a month. The whole cost is borne by German revenues.

Mr. Driberg: Would my hon. Friend convey that information to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burgs (Sir T. Moore) who seemed last Friday to be under a slight misapprehension on this matter?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: While naturally appreciating the interest of the hon. Member in ex-Service men of any country, may I say that this matter is really unworthy of my attention.

BRITISH WARSHIPS (TRANSFER TO FOREIGN POWERS)

Sir Ronald Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make it a condition precedent to the sale or loan of any British warship to a foreign Power that that foreign Power should not be in illegal occupation of British territory.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. It would serve no useful purpose for my right hon. Friend to enter into a general undertaking of this nature. Each case should be judged on its merits, as it arises.

Sir R. Ross: Would not such an act on our part be a condonation of the illegal act of that Power?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. The appropriate way of dealing with a dispute is by the normal, peaceful, legal method.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA

Greek Children

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been received from the Yugoslav


Government about the abducted Greek children; and what further action His Majesty's Government contemplates.

Mr. Mayhew: His Majesty's Government are rightly concerned at the violation of human rights by the removal of Greek children against the wishes of their parents, but they have not themselves communicated with the Yugoslav Government on this matter. At the suggestion of the United Nations Balkans Committee, on which there is a United Kingdom representative, the Greek Government has asked Eastern European Governments for the immediate repatriation of these children. I understand that the Yugoslav reply to the Greek Government alleged that the children could only be returned to Greece after the internal troubles in that country had been settled.

Mr. Pickthorn: Was it not clear, before the question was put to the Yugoslav Government, that it had the approval of His Majesty's Government? What further steps do His Majesty's Government intend to take?

Mr. Mayhew: The reply to the first part of the supplementary question is, "Yes" The reply to the second part is that we shall take all the steps we can through the appropriate United Nations agency.

Mr. Warbey: Is not what really matters that these children should be in safe areas rather than in the midst of fighting?

Mr. Henry Strauss: Of all the horrors with which we are faced is not the abduction of these children among the most atrocious?

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Would the Minister confirm that, in the view of His Majesty's Government, the best place for the children is with their parents?

Mr. Mayhew: That is the view of the Government, and we made our views plain in support of the United Nations Commission.

Yugoslays (Repatriation)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of the Yugoslays who were recently detained at Esterwegen have now been set free; and how many are to be forcibly repatriated.

Mr. Mayhew: Fifteen have been released. Five are to be repatriated.

Major Lloyd: Does this not make the thirty-eighth violation of treaties by Soviet Russia?

Mr. Stokes: Does not the Minister think it entirely contrary to the traditions of this country that people should be forced to be repatriated to a Government which will not give them any fair hearing at all? In fact, on this occasion, is he not condemning them to death?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. The obligations are clear on this matter. A full statement has been made, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Stokes: That is a Pontius Pilate attitude.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: On whose authority is the decision made to repatriate these people?

Mr. Mayhew: These Yugoslays are repatriated if there is a clear, prima facie case of being traitors to the Allied cause.

Mr. Bartlett: Who decides whether there is a clear prima facie case? That is the important point.

Mr. Mayhew: It is a legal decision, taken by a legal tribunal in Germany and confirmed by the legal adviser to the Foreign Office.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is there any appeal against that legal decision?

Mr. Mayhew: It is not a matter of judicial decision and appeal. It is a matter of interpretation whether a prima facie case exists.

Mr. Nicholson: Are the accused given any opportunity to defend themselves?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir.

Mr. H. Strauss: Does the existence of a prima facie case give any ground at all why these people should not have a fair trial? Is it not well-known to His Majesty's Government that these people will not get a fair trial?

Mr. Platts-Mills: On a point of Order. Is it open to hon. Members of this House to make imputations such as that which has just been made against the Yugoslav


Government? Is there any evidence at all to warrant the suggestion that these people will not get fair trials?

Mr. Stokes: Further to that point of Order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Yugoslav Government have themselves issued an order that no competent lawyer may defend a so-called war criminal, except for finding out the truth in the interests of the State?

Mr. Strauss: On that point of Order. May I say that the facts on which I relied have been stated by His Majesty's Ministers in this House?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I had better answer the point of Order. I always thought that the difficulty about sending these people back to Yugoslavia was the fear that they would not get a fair trial. I thought that this was generally recognised. Therefore, these allegations are in Order.

Mr. Platts-Mills: On a point of Order. Is the fact that you, Mr. Speaker, in your position, as we all are, are influenced by propaganda—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—we all are—any reason why the Rule of the House that hostile imputations against a foreign Government are not allowed, should be over-ridden?

Mr. Speaker: I am not influenced by propaganda of any kind but by what I hear in the House. I am influenced by the attitude of His Majesty's Government, among others, towards Yugoslavia.

Mr. Gallacher: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I with other hon. Members of the House have the greatest regard for you as Speaker and for your position, but I must ask you why it is that exception should have been taken on several occasions to my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) on the ground that he was making innuendoes against the Government of the United States, and then we get the most violent and unjustifiable slander about countries in Eastern Europe and nothing is said?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was not aware that I had already intervened when the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) said something against Russia. It is "fair do's" all round as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Silverman: Arising out of the original Ruling, is it not rather a mistake to say that the reason why there is a full examination into the question of whether there is a prima facie case is due to the fear that there may not be a fair trial? Is it not really the case that it is not due to that at all but that the obligations by which the Government are bound are to hand back only where a prima facie case has been established, exactly as is the case under the extradition laws which have always existed between friendly countries?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, that is a matter for the Government. After all, these matters in the Balkan countries are very confused, and there is a fear that there may be partisan feelings from before the war into which we have to look. I do not want to be unfair to the Yugoslav Government, but one has to watch the foreign situation from the Foreign Office point of view.

Mr. Silverman: Then may I ask if His Majesty's Government would in any circumstances hand over a prisoner to another Power, if they doubted whether he would get a fair trial, whether there was a prima facie case or not; and is it not the case that when a prima facie case has been established and after a strict investigation, His Majesty's Government have no option whatever but to carry out their Treaty obligations?

Mr. Stokes: Before my hon. Friend answers, may I ask him whether it is a fact that when these arrangements were made with the Yugoslav Government it was understood by the statements that a free and proper trial would be held, whereas the situation today is entirely different?

Mr. Silverman: How does my hon. Friend know?

Mr. Stokes: It was stated by the Yugoslav Government.

Mr. Speaker: We had better not pursue this further now.

FILM, "THE IRON CURTAIN"

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date, and with what objects Foreign Office representatives saw the film, "The Iron Curtain," before its public release;


and what report he has received of this film regarding the accuracy with which it exposes the aims and methods of international Communism.

Mr. Mayhew: A representative of the Foreign Office was invited by the British Board of Film Censors to a pre-view of this film on the 25th June in case there were matters of diplomatic concern arising from its public exhibition in this country. In reply to the last part of the Question, I understand that the film follows closely the Guzenko incident in the report of the Royal Commission on the Canadian Spy Trials.

Major Beamish: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, quite apart from its entertainment value, this film is a most accurate presentation of the evidence given to the Royal Commission, and that, if anything, it errs on the side of understatement.

Mr. Piratin: Stop advertising.

Mr. Mayhew: It is not for me to comment on that.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Has the Soviet Ambassador in London, who was the Soviet Ambassador in Canada at that time, raised any official objection to the showing of this film, and if so, on what grounds?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that the Minister and his hon. Friends have just published a centenary edition of the Communist manifesto, which calls for the overthrow of present social relations, will he now alter his attitude to the foul anti-Communist propaganda of the American capitalists, or does he want to read the book?

ROUMANIA (REQUISITIONED VILLAS)

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the illegal entry of three villas rented by His Majesty's representatives in Roumania; that these villas are now occupied by Communists who are making full use of the bedding, food and other private property therein; what protest has been made in this connection and if he will insist that the villas be vacated, full compensation paid and an apology tendered.

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Minister in Bucharest has reported that two villas have been requisitioned, one containing personal properties of members of the staff, although the leases were in the name of His Majesty's Legation at Bucharest and had been notified to the Roumanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs After a series of verbal and written protests, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have now assured His Majesty's Minister that a satisfactory solution including compensation, will be reached.

Major Beamish: May I at any rate ask whether any sort of apology has been tendered for this extraordinary insult to His Majesty's representative in Roumania?

Mr. Mayhew: We have received a satisfactory reply.

Major Beamish: But no apology?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Has there been any satisfactory explanation of the reason for the requisitioning?

Major Beamish: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Roumanian Government representative in London is being treated with the usual courtesy?

Mr. Mayhew: I think those questions are rather mischievous. I have already said that we have received a satisfactory reply.

Major Beamish: But no apology?

GREECE (BRITISH MILITARY MISSION)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the burden to the British taxpayer of maintaining the Military Mission in Greece at an average monthly cost of £61,000, and, in view of the existence of 256 American military officers in Greece, as revealed by President Truman's Third Quarterly Report on the Assistance to Greece and Turkey, he will take steps immediately to withdraw the British Military Mission and thus save the tax payers' money.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir.

Mr. Piratin: Such a short answer to such a long Question was astonishing, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Under-Secretary


whether he would be kind enough to explain that answer—"No, Sir"—in view of the fact that the American Military Mission of 256 officers is surely duplicating the whole purpose of our Military Mission? Why cannot they come back?

Mr. Mayhew: The work of the one Mission supplements but does not duplicate the work of the other.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE

Truce

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps His Majesty's Government have taken in support of the continuance or renewal of the truce in Palestine; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Mayhew: Shortly before the expiry of the period of truce in Palestine the United Nations Mediator requested both parties to agree to an extension of the truce. The Jewish authorities agreed to this extension, but the Arab League refused it.
On 7th July Sir Alexander Cadogan introduced in the Security Council a resolution calling upon the parties to comply with the Mediator's request. The resolution was adopted, but it came too late to be taken into account by the Political Committee of the Arab League before they decided against a prolongation of the truce. His Majesty's Government, who had already used their influence with the Arab Governments in support of the Mediator's request, now urged them to re-convene the Political Committee in order to consider the resolution of the Security Council. I am glad to inform the House that the Arab Governments have decided to take this step, and I am informed that the Political Committee will meet in the next day or two. It is the earnest hope of His Majesty's Government that, in view of the backing given to the Mediator by the Security Council, they will reach a different decision at this meeting.
Meanwhile the Security Council is considering a further resolution, introduced yesterday by the Delegate of the United States and generally supported by the United Kingdom delegate, requiring the renewal of the truce within three days and threatening sanctions if this is refused.

Mr. Chamberlain: While I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, and also the great difficulty and complexity of the situation, may I ask him if he could add a word with regard to two points: first, is everything being done towards the demilitarisation of Jerusalem? Secondly, is anything being done for the protection of the oil refineries at Haifa?

Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps the hon. Member would put down the two questions.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my hon. Friend, in view of the statement he has just made, and in order to avoid misunderstanding, whether what he has just stated means any change whatever in the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. I would make it clear that it implies no change of policy. We have always been a strong supporter of the truce, and we are in no way committed to the terms of any final settlement.

Mr. Chamberlain: Can we be assured by the Minister that the strong line by the Security Council asked for by Count Bernadotte will be supported by our Government? Could I have an answer?

Mr. Mayhew: It is clear that the truce may be renewed. It is also clear that we are doing our best to ensure it, and I would rather not add to what I have said at this time.

Kidnapped British Subjects

Mr. Pickthorn: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of State whether he has any information about the British subjects kidnapped in Jerusalem.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): I am sorry not to have been able sooner to report to the House further upon the five British subjects kidnapped in Jerusalem by the Irgun. They are still detained. I have seen reports that there is some intention of staging a trial of these men, on charges of espionage, but there is no official confirmation of these reports. The House knows that the men were seized in a building which was under the protection of the United Nations Truce Commission. The Truce Commission addressed a note to the local Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, stating that if the men were not released by 13th July they would report to the Security Council the inability of the


Jewish authorities to maintain law and order in Jerusalem. We are maintaining almost constant contact with His Majesty's Consulate in Jerusalem but I regret that we do not yet know what action the Jewish authorities have taken as a result of this note.

Mr. Pickthorn: May I ask two Questions. First, whether there is yet any safe, any reliable information about the condition of these men and the conditions in which they are being held? Secondly, what right, if any, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, could any Zionist authority have to try these men on any charge?

Mr. McNeil: I regret to say that I have as yet no official information as to the state or whereabouts of these men. As for the hon. Gentleman's second question, the organisation concerned is, of course, a terrorist organisation and therefore has no status whatever. But even if the Jewish authorities were responsible for the capture, which I am glad to say they are not, since His Majesty's Government have not recognised those authorities we could not recognise the status of any tribunal in Jerusalem to try British subjects.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the inability or possibly the unwillingness of the Jewish authorities to enforce any control over this terrorist organisation raises serious doubts in the minds of people who, up to now, have kept open minds as to any claim they have for a separate State?

Mr. McNeil: I am anxious not to give the impression that I have any reason to believe that the Jewish authorities are unwilling to take care of these men. As to their ability or inability, I should think that to be more properly a subject for the Mediator or the Truce Commission and I am informed, as I have informed the House, that that point of view will be dealt with by the Commission before the Security Council.

Mr. S. Silverman: While appreciating the tone and spirit of my right hon. Friend's reply may I ask will he not confirm that until His Majesty's Government recognise some authority in Jerusalem and in Palestine, the

position remains where the Palestine Act passed in this House left it, namely that there is no law in Palestine at all and no authority so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, entitled to exercise any authority over anybody?

Mr. McNeil: With great respect I should dissociate myself from that viewpoint. His Majesty's Government as a loyal member of the United Nations have so discharged their obligations in Palestine and in particular in Jerusalem. These five men were discharging a public service under the flag of the Truce Commission and the Jewish authorities in that and other areas have almost completely given their adherence to that Truce Commission. His Majesty's Government have the same right to seek the protection of that authority as any other good member of the United Nations.

Mr. Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that other British subjects in Palestine may not suffer the same fate, and has he given any instructions or made any suggestions that there should be a general evacuation of all British subjects from Palestine?

BARBADOS (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what changes are being made in the composition of the Legislative Council of Barbados; and whether he is satisfied that they meet the wishes of the members.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I have approved a proposal to increase the membership of the Legislative Council from 10 to not more than 15, with a view to increasing the representative character of the Council. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.

FALKLAND ISLANDS (LOCAL LEGISLATURE)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any local demands have been made in the Falkland Islands for representation of the people on the local legislature; and what changes are now contemplated.

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. Certain proposals which are now receiving my consideration will be discussed with the Governor on his arrival here within the next week or so.

Mr. Skinnard: Does that involve the introduction of the electoral principle for these proposed representatives?

Mr. Creech Jones: All questions relating to adjustments in the Constitution.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

African Children (Education)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consideration he is giving to the possibility of establishing compulsory education for African children in large towns such as Nairobi and Mombasa; and what practical steps are being taken to meet the wishes of local inhabitants.

Mr. Creech Jones: The hon. Member will appreciate that this is a matter for the Kenya Government. At present that Government has no proposals for compulsory education for Africans in towns such as Nairobi and Mombasa. This is largely due to lack of finance. The new ten-year programme aims at providing within the next 10 years, a full primary course for half the African children of school age in Kenya, but much will depend on the willingness of local bodies to tax themselves.

Indians

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has been taken by the Government of Kenya in accordance with paragraph 30 of Sessional Paper 8 of 1945 to investigate the opportunities available for local Indians without unduly competing with the legitimate aspirations of the African population.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am inquiring what progress the Government of Kenya has made in these investigations and will let my hon. Friend know the result.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Can my right hon. Friend give us any assurance, in view of the apprehension felt by British nationals in Kenya, that exploitation by a more developed race against a less developed race is not taking place?

Mr. Creech Jones: That supplementary question hardly arises on this Question, which is concerned with the opportunities for local Indians competing with the legitimate aspirations of the African population.

Mr. Rankin: May I take it that my right hon. Friend can assure us that in our concentration on the problems of the Africans and the white settler the intermediate position of the Indian will not be overlooked?

Mr. Creech Jones: It will certainly not be overlooked, and has not been overlooked in the shaping of policy in regard to land, housing and education.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has been taken by the Government of Kenya to provide increased accommodation for the Indian urban population in accordance with the policy stated in Sessional Paper No. 8 of 1945.

Mr. Creech Jones: Nairobi and Kisumu Municipalities have carried out public Asian housing schemes. A housing society has built a block of flats at Mombasa for poor Asians. Indians will also benefit from housing societies which the Government of Kenya and some local authorities are forming for their employees.

Mrs. Mann: Has my right hon. Friend any plan for preventing exploitation of the Africans by the Indians?

Mr. Creech Jones: All I can say, in reply to that question, is that we are pursuing a social policy which is to the advantage of the Africans as well as of the Indians. All safeguards are provided in that policy to prevent exploitation of any one community by another.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reports have been made by the Indian and Arab Settlement Board in Kenya on the demand for Agricultural Settlement amongst local Indians; whether any land is being made available for settlement by Indians and with what assistance from the Government of Kenya.

Mr. Creech Jones: So far as I am aware no report has yet been made by the Board on this matter but I am making inquiries and will inform my hon. Friend of the result. I understand that the Board has


conducted several investigations and has found one area which may be suitable for Indian settlement.

Mr. Rankin: May I assume that, while we agree that Indians should be excluded from the African reserves, nothing will be done to exclude them from the White Highlands.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA

Cocoa Board (Funds)

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total, to the nearest £1 millon of money accumulated by the West African Cocoa Board as a result of the difference between the price paid to the producer and the sales price on 1st June, 1948.

Mr. Creech Jones: The West African Cocoa Boards were established on the 1st October, 1947. The sums due to them from the trading surplus of the West African Produce Control Board up to that date were (to the nearest £1 million) for the Gold Coast Board £15 million, and for the Nigerian Board £9 million. The accounts of the Cocoa Boards for the 1947–48 season have not yet been closed and trading figures to 1st June, 1948, are therefore not available.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the fact that there must now be much greater sums available, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is to be done with these sums at a very early date?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is a matter for the Boards in the Gold Coast and Nigeria.

Dr. Segal: Could my right hon. Friend tell the House what part of these amounts is intended to be placed in reserve, and what part is to be allocated for the benefit of the Colonies in the near future?

Mr. Creech Jones: I have no control over these monies. These are matters which have to be decided in the Gold Coast and in Nigeria.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that His Majesty's Government are not consenting to anything in the Trade Charter of the Havana Conference which would interfere with the intention of His Majesty's Government to

use these funds mainly for the purpose of smoothing out trade fluctuations?

Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir.

District Officer (Powers)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Mr. W. F. H. Newingham, a District Officer in West Africa, recently ordered the arrest of a West African Chief, prosecuted, tried and convicted the Chief himself; and what steps he has taken to prevent District Officers acting in this way.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am asking the Governor for information on the matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member later.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that whenever it is necessary to make an arrest better methods will be adopted for ensuring that a trial is necessary? If he feels it desirable to give such power to anyone, will he give it to me to deal with hon. Members on the other side of the House?

Mr. W. J. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman take every step to ensure that these Russian methods are not tolerated?

Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order. The House heard the statement made by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) just now. May I suggest that it was a very unfair question as it was an innuendo against a friendly State implying that the state of affairs drawn to the attention of the Minister in this Question exists in Russia?

Mr. Speaker: If it had been a point of Order, I should have stopped the hon. Member. I did not hear it, and therefore I did not stop him.

Mr. McKinlay: Is it in order for any hon. Member such as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) to change his mind in regard to Russia in the course of time?

Mr. Speaker: What Members do about changing their minds, is not a point of Order.

Mr. Nicholson: Is it not regrettable that attacks should be made upon a servant of His Majesty's Government who cannot reply to them? Should not the system be criticised rather than the individual?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Statistics

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will arrange with Colonial Governments for the publication of a monthly Colonial Statistical Digest similar to the Digest of Statistics for this country published by the Central Statistical Office.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am considering the possibility of publishing a Bulletin of Colonial Statistics at regular intervals. But I do not think we shall be able to attain immediately anything so ambitious as the frequency of publication suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Cooper: While appreciating the intention indicated by my right hon. Friend in his reply, may I ask him if he realises that very often important statistical data is as much as from 12 to 18 months out of date, and that it prevents plans being made intelligently by those who would be willing to take part in Colonial development?

Mr. Creech Jones: I know the problem. In most of our Colonies there is considerable difficulty in collecting and presenting statistics, but we are doing all we can to induce Colonial Governments to give some attention to the importance of preparation and publication.

Mr. David Eccles: Is the Secretary of State aware that 18 months ago, when the Statistics of Trade Bill was going through this House, the Government promised information of this kind? What have they done in the 18 months to carry out that promise?

Mr. Creech Jones: A great deal has been done. This Question relates to Colonial statistics. They are being prepared and, as I have said in reply to the Question, they will be presented.

Economic Planning

Mr. Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a further statement on Government policy with regard to the setting up of a Colonial economic planning board to consider plans for the economic development of the whole of the British Empire and to supplement the Colonial Development scheme since this is only a small proportion of the whole economic planning required.

Mr. Creech Jones: It would not in my view be practicable for the economic development of the whole of the British Empire to be dealt with by a single Colonial Economic Planning Board. Close contacts are maintained between the Colonial Office and the Colonial Development Corporation and the Overseas Food Corporation, on the one hand, and the Central Economic Planning Staff, on the other. These contacts, together with the appointment of representatives of the two Corporations and of the Central Economic Planning Staff as associate members of the Colonial Economic and Development Council, are designed to assure the co-ordination which I think my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend think that the present membership of the various bodies to which he has referred is really representative of the Colonies who are, we hope, shortly to benefit from Colonial development schemes? Is he further aware that the Chairman of the Central Economic Planning Board in this country has reported that fullest consideration is not given to Colonial matters when planning is devised for this country, and ought not these two functions to be inter-related?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am not clear as to the meaning of the question, but I think in consideration on all these Boards the needs of the Colonies and the views of the local people are kept very much in mind.

Mr. Cooper: While I regret that I did not make myself clear earlier, the real point is this: should we not see that there is proper integration between the planning in this country and the planning for the Colonies to ensure right and proper priorities for goods which are in short supply?

Mr. Creech Jones: All steps have been taken with that purpose in view.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman say where the Economic Advisory Council for the Colonies fits into this plan?

Mr. Creech Jones: I think I had better have notice of that question, because all these economic bodies form a rather complex picture and the names of some of them are rather confusing. If I had notice, I would try to set out in proper


form, in reply to a Question, the whole set-up in the Colonial Office dealing with economic matters.

National Parks

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number and names of Colonies which have instituted National Parks for the preservation of wild animal life; and whether the creation of such parks is likely to be extended.

Mr. Creech Jones: There are at present National Parks in Kenya, Tanganyika and in the Federation of Malaya. I understand that the Uganda Government is considering a proposal for the establishment of a National Park and that the possibility of extensions in Kenya is being examined.

Mr. Keeling: Will the Secretary of State for the Colonies endeavour to see that there is a quicker decision about National Parks in the Colonies than there is in this country?

Mr. Bartlett: Will my right hon. Friend do everything he can to encourage these National Parks, if for no other reason than that in the long run, they will prove to be the greatest possible attraction to tourists?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, we are doing all we can, and the attitude of the Colonial Office is well known.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend say how far the sums expended on such parks affect the amounts available for the improvement of the conditions of the human beings who occupy those Colonies? Does this prejudice their position as regards the sums available?

Mr. Creech Jones: The position of the populations is not prejudiced by the establishment of these National Parks.

BRITISH GUIANA (STRIKE SITUATION)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the latest position in British Guiana resulting from the strike on sugar estates; and what action is being taken to end the strike and restore security to persons and property.

Mr. Creech Jones: The position as described in my hon. Friend's statement to the House of 7th July remains unchanged. The Governor is trying through independent intermediaries to end the present deadlock. The disaffected estates are still a proclaimed area, and additional police continue to be posted to protect property and persons. There have been no serious incidents nor damage to property since the disturbances of 16th June.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sugar harvest will soon be starting and that, if peace is not re-established in the sugar estates, great trouble will follow and, therefore, does he not agree that strong action and statement by the local Government is absolutely essential?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes. The Governor, of course, is very much concerned about the protracted stoppage and is taking all the steps he can to bring it to an end.

Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister arrange for the Commission which is making investigations into the Trinidad sugar plantations to look also into the case of Guiana?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is not practically possible.

Mr. Gallacher: Pay attention to the workers' demands.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA

Tin Ore (Export Duties)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Export Duty on tin ore which has been in force in Malaya since 1901 has been abolished; if this action was taken as a result of representations made from the tin or other interests; and if he is satisfied that it will not adversely affect the tin smelting industry in Malaya.

Mr. Creech Jones: The hon. Member has been misinformed. The Export Duty on tin ore has not been abolished. What has been abolished is the additional duty on tin ore exported otherwise than for smelting in certain British territories. This action was taken because differential export duties of this kind are contrary to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the provisional application of


which to the Federation of Malaya has recently been notified to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. I was satisfied that the advantages of this action to the Federation of Malaya outweighed the possible disadvantages.

Mr. Gammans: If it is the additional duty, and not the ordinary duty, which has been abolished, will the right hon. Gentleman say when that additional duty was imposed and why?

Mr. Creech Jones: I regret that I must have notice of that question.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why this move, which is directed to the benefit of the United States and their new smelting industry, is being adopted, whereas the effect of the U.S. Schaeffer Act, which offends in exactly the same way against the international Agreement he has quoted, reacts against rubber interests in Malaya, with the result that we get a very poor deal in both ways?

Deportation Orders

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to which country he intends to deport those British subjects whom it has been decided to deport from Malaya but who are not citizens of Malaya.

Mr. Creech Jones: I understand that no decision has as yet been taken by the Acting High Commissioner to deport any particular British subject from Malaya but certain cases are now under consideration. If a deportation order is made against a British subject he would normally be sent to the country to which he belongs.

War Damage Claims

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the terms of payment of Malayan war damage claims will be announced, and if it is proposed to accept the principle of any priority categories whose claims will be met in full before a pro rata payment is made to others.

Mr. Creech Jones: It was expected in April last that particulars of the Malayan War Damage Compensation Scheme would be announced shortly. Recent events in Malaya have doubtless delayed consideration of this matter but I am inquiring of the Malayan Government

what is the position regarding both points referred to in the hon. Member's Question, and will communicate with him on the receipt of the required information.

Mr. Gammans: Does not the right hon. Gentleman himself lay down the general principles whether small people should be paid in full before larger people get any pro rata allocation? Where is the decision on principle made, here or in Malaya?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am in communication with the Malayan Government on that very point.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Is not the delay due to the fact that totally insufficient staff are being allocated to this work?

Mr. Creech Jones: I feel that the present staff is insufficient and am taking steps to see whether something can he done to increase it.

Mr. Piratin: Does this Question relate to Malays and the war damage they are claiming, or to British investors and their war damage claims?

Mr. Creech Jones: If the hon. Member wants information of that kind will he please put down a Question?

Major Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the staff of the Malayan War Damage Commission has been insufficient for the last three years, and is it not time something was done to acknowledge claims sent in, as many people have sent in claims and have been kept waiting for from 18 months to two years, but have not even had them acknowledged?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am fully aware of that particular difficulty and I have taken what steps are possible in order to get early payment. I am in communication at the moment with the Malayan Government on that very point.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST

Detained Persons (Release)

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the six men detained during the Gold Coast disturbances, whose names are known to him, have been brought to trial or given their liberty.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Removal Orders made against the six men were revoked on 11th April.

Mr. Granville: Can my right hon. Friend say whether after arrest these men were taken to another part of the country; whether, if they have been returned to their homes, any charge was made against them, and whether their release was made absolutely clear?

Mr. Creech Jones: They were taken from their homes but are now back in their homes. The whole matter is the subject of a report which I hope will be available to the House by the end of this month.

Mr. Frank Byers: Is it not a fact that at no time were charges made against these people, and can the Colonial Secretary give an assurance that we shall not have this sort of thing happening in the Colonies in the future?

Mr. Creech Jones: I would prefer to make no statement until the report is available to the House.

Mr. Gallacher: This was not a "Communist plot."

Mr. Granville: Are these very drastic emergency powers still in operation or have they been removed? Is the same thing still going on?

Mr. Creech Jones: They arose out of certain emergency regulations made under ordinances in the Gold Coast and are no longer operative.

Cocoa (Pest-Affected Trees)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent cocoa farmers in the Gold Coast and Nigeria have resisted the need of eliminating pest-affected trees and other methods of combating this danger; what attempts are being made fully to acquaint the farmers with this need; and to what extent the surplus acquired by the Board will be used to meet the necessity of financial compensation.

Mr. Creech Jones: In the Gold Coast there has been considerable and sometimes violent opposition to the cutting out of cocoa trees attacked by Swollen Shoot—the only known method of preventing the

spread of the disease. As a result, compulsory cutting out has had to be suspended. Wide publicity has been given by the Gold Coast Government to the nature and necessity for drastic measures to deal with the disease; Africans have been urged to co-operate in attacking it and the Cocoa Marketing Board has agreed to provide up to £3 million for rehabilitation grants. This has led to some voluntary cutting out, which continues. Further consideration is being given to this problem in the light of the recommendations of the Gold Coast Commission, which investigated the causes of the recent disturbances.
In Nigeria the disease has not been so widespread and opposition to cutting out has been small. Rehabilitation grants are being made from Cocoa Marketing Board funds at the rate of 1s. 6d. for each diseased tree cut out. Energetic steps are being taken to bring home to farmers the need for these measures.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the Secretary of State give any idea what would be the reduction in the production of cocoa because of the resistance on the part of the farmers to this method of trying to cure the disease?

Mr. Creech Jones: Over a long period the whole crop is endangered and therefore it is imperative that the Africans should co-operate with the Government in cutting out the trees which are discovered to be affected.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question of whether he has any estimate of the amount of reduction?

Mr. Creech Jones: As I have said, the whole crop is endangered over a comparatively short period of years.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a very large sum, I think £3 million, paid for rehabilitation. Will he say what steps are being taken to prevent this disease, not merely by the destruction of the trees, in view of the fact that some of the rehabilitation grants may also go down the drain?

Mr. Creech Jones: As the House knows, there is the research organisation at Tafo, which has been doing enormous research into the disease, but so far no remedy


has been found and the only way of treating the disease is by cutting out the trees affected.

Dr. Segal: Does my right hon. Friend fully realise that the question of compensation is crucial and that the disease will not be eradicated unless the compensation is adequate?

SEYCHELLES (LOANS TO UNITED KINGDOM)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies by whom in the Seychelles Colony the decision was made to loan £30,000 to His Majesty's Government; whether the description of this sum as surplus to requirement signifies that all necessary social services and requirements are operating and are not in need of expansion.

Mr. Creech Jones: Two loans, of £15,000 and £22,500 respectively, have been made by the Seychelles Government. These were approved by the Executive and Legislative Councils. The loans came from Seychelles Government general Revenue balances, which are at present lying idle but will be needed ultimately to meet the cost of expanding services at present financed from the Colonial Development and Welfare Vote. The loans are repayable as and when required.

Mr. Sorensen: Does it mean meanwhile that nothing could be done in Seychelles with this money on behalf of the African people there?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is so.

Sir T. Moore: Is it not in any case rather ungracious and ungenerous to look this generous gift horse in the mouth like this?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Courts Martial

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence if his attention has been drawn to the case of Private James Ronald, 6th Battalion Gordon Highlanders, who in 1946 was tried by Field General Court Martial, convicted of murder and sentenced to death; whose sentence was commuted to penal servitude

for life but which sentence was in July, 1948, quashed for irregularity in the proceedings; and, in view of the defects in the present court martial system, whether he will expedite the provision of a general right of appeal from conviction and sentence at all courts martial.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I do not consider that this case can be taken as evidence of general defects in the present courts martial system. In any case, this system is at present under review in connection with the Report of the Lewis Committee.

Mr. Hughes: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the answer, may I ask if he is aware that amongst members of the three Forces and other persons interested in the administration of justice, there is a strong opinion in favour of some such alteration in the law. As he has mentioned the Lewis Report, can my right hon. Friend tell us when the Report will be published and what steps he will take to implement the recommendation which it is commonly supposed to include?

Mr. Alexander: I have nothing to add, in answer to the last part of that question, to what was said by the Secretary of State for War yesterday.

Combined Cadet Force

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Defence if he has arranged for boys who do well in the Combined Cadet Force to be given some credit for this service when they enter the Forces, particularly in the matter of promotion to commissioned rank.

Mr. Alexander: It is the policy of the Services to advance ex-cadets as rapidly as is justified by the extra knowledge of Service subjects and added capacity for leadership derived from cadet training. Promotion to commissioned rank must go by merit, but there is no doubt that, other things being equal, an ex-cadet should enjoy better prospects than other entrants.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister take steps to make that policy well known in the schools and elsewhere?

Mr. Alexander: It has been made known again and again, both by public statement and by information in the schools.

Mr. Lipson: Does the answer mean that when these ex-cadets join one of the Forces a record is made of the fact that he had previously been attached to a cadet unit?

Mr. Alexander: Every recruit to the Services is interviewed separately and questions are asked about what he has been doing in this respect.

Recruitment, Scotland (Women)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence if he will cease recruiting women for the Armed Forces in Scotland until there is a sufficient number of nurses needed for hospitals and sanatoria treating tuberculosis.

Mr. Alexander: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Can we take it that it is not the function of the Minister of Defence to defend us against tuberculosis? Does he realise that in Scotland the figures are worse than for 20 years and that we need 5,000 nurses? Does he not think they are more necessary in hospitals than in the Forces?

Mr. Alexander: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will answer about disease in Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour about recruitment of labour. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to deny Scotswomen the same freedom of choice as to what they do as exists in other parts of the country.

Information (Disclosure)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Defence on what principle he acts in giving or withholding information regarding information regarding the numbers of British troops in a given area.

Mr. Alexander: Any decision is based upon what is, or is not, in the public interest.

Mr. Piratin: Is the Minister aware that only a few months ago the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs announced that

the number of troops in Greece was about 5,000? Therefore, why the reticence on this occasion to give this figure, which was given a few months ago?

Mr. Alexander: We have had discussions before about what information can be given. The Prime Minister made a statement in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) a few months ago and we always have the matter under consideration. I wish the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) was equally anxious that we should get information from other sources.

Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully ask whether it was necessary for the Minister of Defence to make that last remark about me?

Mr. Speaker: Points of Order deal with Parliamentary procedure, not with Minister's answers. If every time Members are dissatisfied with an answer they get from a Minister they raise that as a point of Order, we shall never get on with Business. Points of Order deal with procedure not with other matters.

Mr. Piratin: While of course I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that what I was raising was not the content of what the Minister was saying but rather his conduct in using the occasion to make a remark of the kind which he did.

Mr. W. J. Brown: In exercising the very necessary discretion which the Minister claims in this matter, will he have regard to the probable use to which information will be put in certain quarters if it is published?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered:
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[22ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1948–49.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £40, be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Housing for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, namely:



£


Class V, Vote 1, Ministry of Health
10


Class V, Vote 4, Ministry of Labour and National Service
10


Class VII, Vote 1, Ministry of Works
10


Class X, Vote 1, Ministry of Supply
10


Total
£40"

—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING

3.38 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We have set down the Votes for housing and connected services today because there is scarcely any subject of more vital importance to the ordinary man or woman. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that there is scarcely any subject on which we receive more representations. We are now in possession of the Housing Return presented at the end of June this year containing the detailed figures up to 31st May, so that the main picture for the current housing year is before us. There are also several important declarations of policy and it is, therefore, in our view appropriate to review the position now.
The purpose of any housing policy must be an adequate supply of houses at reasonable rents. To this end, with very general agreement, a large programme of non-traditional houses was organised during the war and an immense weight of manpower and materials has been concentrated upon this and upon traditional houses ever since. The programme of non-traditional houses is now undergoing the run-off which was anticipated, and the programme of traditional houses is running up, as also was anticipated.
The building machine of this country, after perhaps a slow start, is getting into shape to deliver houses at a rate comparable with the pre-war years—[Interruption.] I shall make my own speech in my own time. If the hon. Member wishes to know which year, I will say the 12 years before the war, and, if he wishes, all the years since the Baldwin Government was returned in 1924. The figure of actual completion is at present running high, but the figure is to be reduced. That is the first point.
The proposed figure, according to the housing returns, is 180,000 per annum for England and Wales, and some 210,000 for Great Britain. That is, of course, as I said just now in response to an interruption, a reduction from the figure which this country has been running at for a very long time. The figure of 180,000 was first reached and passed in England and Wales in 1926, when we touched 197,000, and it is important for the Committee to know that, except in 1928 and 1930, that figure has been maintained. It was above that figure for the 12 or 13 years before the war, and the average for the whole of those 12 years was about 250,000 per annum. So the first point for the Committee to grasp is that we are being asked to accept a level 70,000 a year below the average we held for 12 years before the war, including the three years of the slump. The machine which was advancing towards this figure, and indeed to the height of the figure before the war, has been halted. What reason is given for this?
I think it would be fair to say that the Minister claims, firstly, that the present houses are much bigger and better than the pre-war houses. He advances that contention. I wish to be perfectly fair to the Minister. He says that the reduced rate is not really as much reduced as it would appear, because the individual dwellings are bigger and better than before the war. He is entitled to that point. Secondly, he makes a point that at the rate envisaged, the back of the housing problem will be broken by the next General Election. I think that is a contention that we on this side of the Committee would find it very difficult to admit. The Minister said at Durham on 20th July, 1946:
When the next election occurs there will be no housing problem in Great Britain for the British working class.


At Deptford on 9th October, 1946, he said:
I give you this promise: that by the next General Election there will be no housing shortage as far as the mass of the British people are concerned.
He said at Coventry on 5th July, 1947:
By the time the next General Election is held we will have broken the back of the housing problem.
Becoming still more cautious, he said at Cambridge on 24th April:
By the next General Election the back of the housing programme will have been broken.
It is more easy to break the back of a programme than of a problem, but these prophecies seem to refer to the estimate—and again I wish to be perfectly fair to the Minister—which the Coalition Government gave in the White Paper, Cmd. 6609, of March, 1945. The Coalition Government estimated that at the end of 1944, three-quarters of a million new dwellings would be needed to afford a separate dwelling for every family. By the way, the White Paper also stated that half a million more were needed to abate overcrowding.
There are, I think, two fallacies in this, to which the Commitee should address itself. Since that time marriages account for a considerable increase in the households or families requiring accommodation. It is within the knowledge of most of us from our post bags that a continual demand is made for new houses for families of ex-Service men and others who have married since that date, and I think that the figure of 150,000 for that is no exaggerated estimate. The wastage of pre-war houses is a difficult matter to ascertain. G. D. H. Cole has given the figure as one house in 60 annually.
Again we must try to determine from what basis we are to calculate, because actually a great number of houses in this country have been built within the last 60 years. Even going right back for 60 years to 1888, and saying that no house built since 1888 has required replacement, which is a very strong assumption, and taking it that 2 per cent. of houses built before 1888 are requiring replacement, which is to say one house in 50, which is giving a 50 years life to the houses built before 1888—which the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks)

will admit is again a very strong assumption—we have a wastage of houses which will amount to not fewer than 350,000 since the date of this estimate by the Coalition Government.
These two figures together come to half a million. Even if the Minister has produced 750,000 houses, which, according to his own statement, ought to have solved the problem or, at any rate, even if the 750,000 has dealt—I am trying to be as generous as possible—with the figure mentioned by the Coalition Government, I would say there are still clearly at least half a million more needed before we begin to catch up with the original problem.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Hear, hear.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not quite see how that squares with the Minister's very confident pledges and there are others also who find difficulty in agreeing to that. Tory comments are always subject to the suggestion of party bias, and therefore I will not quote any Conservative critic in this matter. But let us call as a witness the President of the National Union of Clerical and Administrative Workers. Speaking on a responsible occasion, his presidential address this year—it happened at Llandudno and I say this to distinguish the conference from any other conferences which may be held at Llandudno this year for that conference was strongly in favour of the present Government—the president said:
It is unfortunately true that our Minister of Health, Mr. Aneurin Bevan, made a foolish boastful speech in the House of Commons, on 17th October, 1945, suggesting that in four years at most he would have relieved the housing stringency and broken the back of the problem. All knowledgeable people knew he was talking nonsense, so perhaps we need not take his personal weakness too seriously; but we expect better from Labour Ministers.
The President is Mr. Scouller. It is clear that the view that in four years the problem will have been disposed of does not meet with universal acceptance. It may be necessary, for reasons of force majeure, to accept the rate of 180,000 houses proposed by the Minister; but, as I say, that is a cut of 70,000 houses below a 12 years' average before the war. The suggestion that we should accept this cut of 70,000 houses a year is a suggestion


that we should accept a cut in the greatest of the social services. It is not an argument which is advanced about any of the other social services or indeed about the main industries of this country. The suggestion that the output of steel, food, or indeed of coal should be at a figure lower than the pre-war figure is not a contention which is accepted. Certainly it is not accepted in the great social services.
The health service, the pension service, the insurance service and others are being expanded. This is the greatest of the social services and it is being contracted. As I think the Minister would agree, the problem is not, in fact, the completion of 600,000 or 700,000 houses. The problem is the commencement and completion of the next four million. That is the great task which now lies before us. We are now beginning to lay down the lines upon which the next four million houses will be begun, carried through and completed. That is a task upon which many Ministers of Health will be engaged. Indeed, it will tax severely the energies of the whole country.
The output of houses since the war has been considerable and I am more than glad about that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, it is true. This is a matter in which we are all vitally concerned, none of us more than another. But this output has been gained by a great deployment of manpower. The Parliamentary Secretary, in concluding the Debate last year, said:
The aim has been to get something like 60 per cent. of the total building force employed on housing work of all kinds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1947; Vol. 441, C. 156.]
The Minister, in his somewhat more flamboyant style, said:
Over the last two years, by means of … controls, … roughly 60 per cent. of the building force of Great Britain has been compelled to obey the overriding Socialist purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 83.]
The two statements are the same. One is couched in more vigorous language than the other. The hon. Member for East Woolwich, whose impending departure, of which we are informed, we all very greatly deplore, set a very high standard, as indeed he is entitled to do. During that Debate he said:
One hundred thousand building workers should be able to build 100,000 houses per year.

The present figures are very much below that.

Mr. George Hicks: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, the houses are larger now, and they require more effort.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Gentleman did not hedge on that occasion. He said:
One hundred thousand building workers should be able to build 100,000 houses per year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 947: Vol. 441, c. 112.]
I am taking that as his contention. I would point out that in the current 12 months, 242,000 employed men have produced 184,000 houses, which is one house to about one and a half men. The "Economist," in a survey on 10th July, 1948, said that there had been
a fall in productivity which can be roughly summarised by the statement that two men are now necessary to produce the results that one produced before the war 
That seems to me perhaps an overstatement on the figures before us. However, Mr. Wood, the Comptroller of the London County Council, read a paper before the Municipal Treasurers' Conference, reported on 25th June of this year. He said:
Experience over the last three years has shown that twice as many man-hours as prewar were required to complete a dwelling.
The National Federation of Building Trades Employers, who do not go so far, estimate that work formerly carried out in 100 man-hours now requires approximately 160 man-hours. These are figures of very great importance. As I shall show later, they are reflected in the cost and, thereby, in the rents of houses which are being erected at present. They are of vital importance to all of us, because Mr. Wood reached some further conclusions to which I shall ask the attention of the Committee later.
Some of the causes for this are good and some bad. As I said at the beginning, and as I say again, the causes include the increased size of the houses and the improved amenities. But also, Mr. Woods gives the upsetting of the rhythm of constructional operations through shortages of material and other causes. Again, I think all of us will agree that that has been a most important feature. There have been repeated changes of policy. The curve reproduced at the back


of the Housing Return bears witness to that. When the Army is fighting badly, it is a good maxim first to sack your Ministers and then to sack your generals. The fighting troops are the last people who ought to be blamed. If there is a mistake here, the mistake begins at the top. The upsetting of the rhythm of construction is certainly not a thing that can be blamed upon the ordinary bricklayer or plasterer.
The Government, in their White Paper, "Capital Investment in 1948" state that the manpower on housing was to be reduced from 569,000 at 31st October, 1947, to 525,000 on 30th June, 1948, and the total building force was to be cut from 1,004,000 to 835,000. As far as I can gather from the Housing Return, the labour on housing has been reduced from 569,000 to 540,000. That is another symptom of the voluntary and deliberate reduction in this great social service which we all know touches the lives of the people so closely. The total labour force remains at almost exactly one million.
Obviously, there is here a wasteful use of the greatest national asset—manpower. That is reflected in the costs which, in turn, are reflected in the rents. So far as I can, I shall try to translate the figures into terms of rents, because they are what touch the ordinary tenant, the ordinary citizen of this country. To take first of all the cost, the Minister's Act of 1946 was designed to secure that houses should be let at 10s. a week in urban areas and 7s. 6d. a week in rural areas. It took the interest rate of 3⅛ per cent., and on that I make the cost of the house, including the site and services, £1,155. The figure of the National Housing and Town Planning Council is the same, but Mr. Wood's figure is £1,100 The interest rate, the Minister will not deny, has actually been a little below what was envisaged. The site costs have certainly not risen, yet the Comptroller of the L.C.C. in this paper states that the annual deficiency on a three-bedroomed cottage was £33, as against £22 contemplated in the Act.
How does this come about? The "Economist" quotes Mr. Wood's figures and adds some more of its own. I trust the Committee will not object if I use a considerable number of figures in this examination, because it is of great importance and upon it the whole future of

the great housing programme of this country depends. The 1946 figures were either £1,100 or £1,155, but these costs are now given as £1,330, and the charges on that figure—£62—were made up by £16 Exchequer contribution £5 10s. rates, £11 special contributions, and the rent met less than one-half of these charges.
We want to know from the Ministry what the cost of a house is running at under the present arrangements. The "Economist" says:
The Ministry of Health is prepared to assert from the figures in its possession that the final cost of house building by a local authority is below the price of £1,300, and, in London, £1,400. Outside the Ministry of Health, there is a general impression that costs are often well above these limits, and it is sometimes suggested that the Ministry's average figure owes something to the skill of accounting more than to certain expensive fittings.
That is an unsatisfactory way to leave it. The Committee, which is being asked to vote a very large sum today, has a right to something slightly more solid than the fact that the Ministry is prepared to assert certain things from figures in its possession.
From any figures which I have been able to ascertain or which have been quoted by the "Economist," these costs are exceeded in a considerable number of cases, and, in some, are very highly exceeded indeed. The "Economist's" investigation is here. The cost in November 1946, and 1947, in a group of large boroughs, is given at the reasonable figure of £1,200, but, in June, 1948, the figure is given in the same investigation of £1,670. That is a very disquieting rise indeed. For medium boroughs, the figure given in March, 1948, is £1,610 and, for small boroughs, in 1948, up to £1,729. I have tried to ascertain certain costs by inquiries from local authorities and others, and I find that the costs for a three-bedroomed house in Bridgwater—which, it is fair to say, is a house of 1,098 feet superficial area rather than the Dudley house—is £1,500. In Chesterfield, the figure is £1,340; in Lancaster, £1,434; in Coventry, between £1,170 and £1,450, according to the date of the contract; in Petersfield, £1,500, and in East Barnet, £1,600. Again, I say these are the figures which an ordinary private Member has been able to ascertain. They are figures which only the Ministry can examine,


check and break down, but they are far above the figures suggested in the Act.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman talking about the price for permanent houses, or about that for the B.I.S.F. or some others?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No, in all these cases, they are permanent houses, and, as far as possible, they are three-bedroomed houses, and, where the superficial area figures exceeded the Dudley standard, I have given them. So far as I can make out, they are strictly comparable, and I have ascertained them from the local authorities and I have their various letters here. I have letters from Chesterfield and Bridgwater—this is from the Town Clerk, concerning a brick house with a superficial area of 1,098 feet and with three bedrooms. I have all the other figures here. I think the Minister may take it that these figures are as near as I can make them—and the private Member has difficulties as compared with Government Departments—strictly comparable figures.
The Ministry of Works carried out an inquiry into the distribution by builders' merchants of building materials and components, on which I shall have a word to say later on, but it does not lie in these margins. There are certain animadversions made against the practices of building merchants, mostly very strongly in favour of free competition. Reading them, I wondered whether I was not reading an article by William Barkley in the "Daily Express." It is an odd thing to find published by the Government, but I shall return to it in a moment. The figures show that, even supposing the merchants made no profit at all and had done that work for nothing, the increase in costs would have been only one per cent. less, so that it is not there that it lies.
These figures are also reflected in the high rents. The Minister will be familiar with the memorandum submitted by the Towcester Rural District Council in February, 1948. The figure from that rural district ran to £1,645. To crystallise it in a single figure, the Comptroller of the London County Council reckons that

the next 4,500,000 houses, if the programme is to be carried out on these rates, will cost £7,000 million, which brings into very sharp relief the statement by the Dudley Committee that, unless building costs could be reduced, it would be impossible to complete the next programme of 4 million houses, and it is the real foundation for that programme which we are beginning to discuss.
The hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) in opening last year's Debate, said that the whole essence of the building programme was not that houses should be built to let at rents of 30s. a week or to be bought through building societies, but to be let at rents of from 12s. to 15s. a week. Rents—and again I am using data supplied by the National Housing and Town Planning Council—are running as high as 17s. a week in Banstead, 19s. a week in Frimley and Camberley, and 22s. 4d. a week in Barnet. These rents are in respect of traditional three-bedroom non-parlour houses for which the average pre-war rent, ex rates is given by the same organisation as 6s. 6d. a week. Rural districts show a similar disquieting trend. According to the authorities, the rents in St. Ives are 15s. a week, in Chesterfield 15s. a week, and, in Beverley, non-agricultural cottages were 13s. a week, and agricultural cottages 11s. a week.

Mr. David Renton: When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says "St. Ives," does he mean Huntingdonshire or Cornwall?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I understand it is the St. Ives in Huntingdonshire, but I will look up the letter and let the hon. Gentleman know. In Dunmow the rents of non-agricultural and agricultural cottages are 15s. 8d. and 13s. 2d. a week respectively; in Pershore 16s. 6d., and in Amersham 16s.
The average 1939 rate for non-parlour local authority houses—traditional houses—was 5s. 6d. a week for non-agricultural workers, and 5s. a week for agricultural workers. As the Committee will know, the rent at present allowed to be deducted from wages in the case of the tied cottage is 6s. a week. Therefore, an agricultural worker who is asked to move from a tied cottage to a local authority cottage is


asked to move from a cottage at 6s. a week to, in some cases, a cottage at 16s. a week, that is to say, a rent raise of rips of 10s a week.

Mr. Stubbs: Usually for a much better cottage.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That may well be, but the mere rise in rent means that the man and his wife have to forgo the whole value of the food subsidies which is at present given as 4s.—the whole of the food subsidies, on which such great stress has been laid even during the present week in Debates in this House, are wiped out by the single figure of the rise in rent. That is something which, quite frankly, a great many agricultural labourers will find it very difficult to—

Mr. Stubbs: What about the difference in the wages?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am talking about today's wages. The deduction from today's wage is 6s., whereas if a man moves to a council house the deduction from his wage may be as high as 16s.

Mr. Stubbs: For the same kind of house?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As the hon. Member knows, in many cases the house is a reconditioned modern agricultural cottage; it is a good house and quite comparable with the local authority cottage.

Mr. Stubbs: They are not fit for a pig to live in.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If they are not fit for a pig to live in, then nobody should be allowed to make a deduction of 6s. a week in respect of them. That deduction should only be made for houses in good and tenantable repair—proper houses for people to live in.

Mr. Stubbs: rose—

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member must not get so excited about it. The cottages which have been reconditioned—and it is only of the reconditioned cottages that we are speaking—are fit for anyone to live in. I should be perfectly willing to live in one of them myself. I do not seem to be carrying the hon. Member with me. Let me give some particulars, to which the hon. Member

cannot possibly take any exception, as to the difficulties of the proposed tenants of these new dwellings. In March of this year, the Treasurer of the City of Coventry—the city in which the Minister made one of his declarations—said that rents based upon current costs are so high that it would be impossible to let houses except to those with high incomes. It is well known that the difficulties in which these high rents are placing local authorities are causing them to complain and make representations of every kind to the Minister.
The Minister has so far said that he cannot give final figures as to costs. I think the Committee is entitled today to say that the Parliamentary Secretary must be prepared to give those figures, and to give them in detail. It is not enough to give averages; he has got to give us figures for representative groups, and, indeed, to discuss the figures which not only I but the Controller of the London County Council or the "Economist" has submitted. These are groups which, as I say, bear out not merely the fact that there is a disquietingly high level of rents, but that it is disquietingly patchy. This matter is of great importance since the Minister's last circular because one of the remedies he has adopted is to sanction the building of houses on private account. He says that the cost at which a house is to be sanctioned is to be a cost comparable to that at which local authorities are passing their own houses. Therefore, it is clear that a local authority which is passing the cost of its own houses at £1,600 and £1,700 will, according to the Minister's circular, be perfectly entitled to pass building on private account at the same figures.

Mr. Bevan: indicated dissent.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Minister seems to dissent from that; I do not seem to be carrying him with me either. I should have thought he would agree with me.

Mr. Bevan: I cannot agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the very simple reason that there is a proviso that they cannot allow more than one house in every five to be built for sale, and as the four out of the five will always be based on a competitive tender, the tender price will keep the general level down.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: But the houses based on that level are running at £1,600 and £1,700. We cannot do more than say that these are the figures supplied to us by local authorities, by the Controller of the London County Council, and by the "Economist." When we find the figure for smaller county boroughs running at £1,729, it is clear that a local authority would be perfectly within the terms of the Minister's circular in passing a house for a private individual at £1,700 odd. It will be very difficult in these circumstances to prevent levels like that being established or, at any rate, to prevent those areas exercising a greater attraction to building materials and labour than others where the prices are lower.
A good deal of this certainly comes from loading a machine with more than it can take on. A great deal also comes from the frequent changes of policy which have taken place. Even more, I think, comes from the attempt to block, first, most building, and, next, all building on private account. The Minister contends that it is not fair to use private enterprise because it is building for local authorities just as direct labour is building for local authorities. Then let us take building on private account—we cannot fall into any error about that—under which 80,000 houses were built before the Minister put an end to it, and were built at £1,300. The great rise has taken place since the Minister withdrew that permission.
The Minister contends that building to private account is building for the rich as against the poor. I do not think that argument is valid. A great addition to the national stock of houses of the desired size and inexpensively built, eases the whole housing situation, and not merely the personal situation of the particular possessor of a house. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is present. I think his experience will bear that out, because in Scotland in the years before the war the local authorities were the major providers of houses. In fact, they were almost the sole providers of houses.
In England, as everyone knows, an enormous percentage of houses were ordered for building to private account, as much as three or four to one. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. In 1938, 29 per cent. of the houses in Scotland were overcrowded and only 3.8 per cent. of the houses in England were over-

crowded. It shows conclusively that the great expansion of houses due to bringing in the builder on private account as well as the builder on local authority account eased the whole housing situation, and consequently a much greater reduction of overcrowding took place in a country where both the trace horses were pulling on the wagon as compared with the country where one horse alone was being asked to shoulder this great load.
The Minister's new policy in his circular is to take off the ceiling and then to throttle down competition. If he adheres entirely or even as much as he is doing to local authority housing, I prophesy that he will find a very slow decline in costs. I commend to his notice the conclusions of the sub-committee which the Simon Committee, already mentioned, set up. That sub-committee went to America to view the problem of the distribution of materials there. They wrote:
We found no devastation as the result of price warfare. On the contrary, we were repeatedly impressed by the advantages both to traders and to the public of a system in which trade associations can concentrate their energy on the promotion of education and efficiency, individual merchants can pass on to their customers any economies they may achieve themselves, and purchasers pay only for the services they require.

Mr. Bevan: Is that view shared by the American G.I's.?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am only talking of the view which the Minister's own committee found as a result of going to America at public expense and coming back to report. There has really been nothing like it since the prophet Balaam was sent out to curse the Israelites and turned round and blessed them. I think it is worth while for the Minister to read this criticism of his own committee.
I apologise for taking the time of the Committee; there are many others who wish to speak, but it would not be fair to close without indicating the alterations in policy which we think the Minister should adopt. First of all, he should certainly bend his efforts to creating a climate in which it is possible for building to private account to flourish, instead of doing his best to discourage it. He should certainly act on the recommendations of the Hobhouse Report which has now been out for a long time, and allow and assist


the reconditioning of existing houses both in town and in country, which I am convinced would give housing accommodation at a lower cost than he is able to achieve at these enormously high costs which I have been quoting. When I say "assist" I do not only mean by grants; I mean by the release of material and by the issue of permits. What is the use of saying, "I shall sanction expenditure by a private individual of up to £100 on repairs to his house," and then say, "Of course, this makes no difference to my standing refusal to let you have anything to do it with"? The permission to spend £100 nowadays is a very small concession. The question is, is it possible to get a permit for anything on which to spend the £100?

Mr. Scollan: Is it possible to get anything for £100?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The first thing is to get permission and not to be put in goal if you are found trying to get anything for £100. That is the limiting factor just now, as we all know.
The Hobhouse Report, or the extended Hobhouse Report, is certainly the second of the lines which the Minister should adopt. When he is licensing for private account building it is a mistake for him to try to hold that to the local authority figures. He should try to hold it below those figures—at £100 or £200 below those figures—and try to get the spiral going downwards instead of upwards. Somehow or other he will need to get the spiral turned downwards instead of upwards. We on this side of the Committee do not believe that the reduction of cost will ever be obtained simply by the action of committees and commissions of inquiry. Only the firm of Jones can really discipline the firm of Smith, and that will be done, as the Simon Report says, by
a system in which individual merchants can pass on to their customers any economies they may achieve … and purchasers pay only for the services they require.

Mr. Bevan: Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to interrupt him, because he has made a very important statement. Does he suggest that what I should now do is to issue a new circular to local authorities to the effect that in granting the licences to builders to build houses on private account, to use his own description, they should always

insist that houses of a comparable size should be built at £100 or £200 less than the local authority builds a similar house?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot:: The Minister has appreciated the half of my argument correctly, but he must also appreciate the other half—that he should double or treble the amount of a private account building which he is prepared to sanction. That is the point, that he should bring it up to at least 50–50 and, in my view, he should strive to bring it up even higher than that. He should certainly say, "If I release this on private account I expect private enterprise to show it is efficient and produce cheaper than they would in the other case."

Mr. Bevan: I am obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the courtesy he extends to me in giving way, because I should like to understand what is now being suggested. The Opposition have had so many different housing policies, and I should like to know where they have now arrived. Is it now suggested that in the rural areas the building force there should be permitted to build as many houses for private ownership as for renting to agricultural workers?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot:: Surely in all areas the Minister's present policy of restricting to one in five represents a totally inadequate allocation, and that allocation should be very considerably increased. That is no change in policy. That policy has been advocated consistently by every speaker on these benches in every housing Debate. If we have not made ourselves clear to the Minister I am glad that we have now got it across to him and to his supporters. Otherwise, I fear that if the Minister is not able to adopt these suggestions, in spite of his feral and mercurial temperament, which I take it is the antithesis of a bovine and phlegmatic temperament—to use an extreme and perhaps libellous term, which I would not have done but for the well-known vigour in controversy of the Minister—he will go down to history as little better than the Dalton of housing.

4.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): I am sure that in recent weeks many of us must have had sympathy with those unfortunate people who had to select our


cricket team to play against the Australians. How much more must our sympathy go out to those people, whoever they may be, who decide who is to open the bowling in these annual housing tests which we have?
Last year we expected the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) to open the bowling, but, as a matter of fact, he came on rather late as a change bowler, and then we all recollect how in the end he retired hurt, having been hit on the head by a direct return from my right hon. Friend and—how humiliating—off a no-ball at that. Today we have had a change of bowling, and I can say to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) that on this occasion at any rate he has been bowling for most part on the wicket, and except for right at the end of his speech he did not indulge in anything remotely like body-line bowling. He will understand that there are some of the points that he made which I must obviously leave to my right hon. Friend to deal with in his own way.
It is a year ago since we had a Debate on housing and I think, therefore, I can best serve the Committee by giving a review of what we are doing and what we are aiming to do. We have given in the monthly Housing Return a wealth of information of the progress of our programme—much more than any Government have ever given in the past—and in the last report we gave a fairly comprehensive review. I shall have occasion, as I go on, to deal with a number of the various headings of that review, but I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I dealt mainly with four basic points. What is the basis of the programme on which we have been embarked since 1945? How far has a balance of performance been established since 1945? How far has control over the cost of the programme been successfully secured? What are the main lines of development in mind for the future?
First, as to the basis and policy of the programme; it was to treat the provision of new houses for those without a separate home of their own as our primary object, to build as many houses as the national resources available would allow, and to rely on the local authorities as the main agent in order to ensure that the houses would go to those found to

be in the greatest need of them, in the judgment of a responsible elected public authority. On previous occasions we have asked the spokesmen of the Opposition to say plainly whether they any longer agree with the view of the Coalition Government, expressed by Mr. Willink when he was Minister of Health, that they proposed to use local authorities for building the vast majority of houses. On previous occasions the Opposition have refused to answer on that point. This afternoon, I think, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has come off the fence and has said plainly that the view of the Coalition Government no longer is the view of His Majesty's Opposition.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot:: The Parliamentary Secretary will agree, of course, that the view of the Coalition Government was to deal with the immediate postwar problem. We are now beginning the construction of 4½ million houses, which is a different matter.

Mr. Edwards: At any rate it is satisfactory to know where the Opposition now stand. We did not know before.
Turning to numbers, there has been some criticism that too much and some criticism that too little of the national resources has been devoted to housing. There has been some criticism that we are building too few houses and some criticism that we are building too many, and, indeed, there have been some critics who almost managed to combine the argument that too much of the national resources is being devoted to housing with the argument that, at the same time, we are building too few houses and also not doing enough reconditioning.
A notable absence from the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman this afternoon was that he did not even give us the beginning of an idea as to where he stood in this regard. He did not even attempt to say whether he thought we ought to be building more houses or fewer houses, except by implication, when he suggested that if we gave more of the work to private enterprise we would get more houses built. But it is important that we should know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman stands with the much-quoted "Economist" in this regard or not, or whether he disagrees with the view of the "Economist" that we are devoting too much of our resources at the present time to building houses.
The amount of the national resources that can be devoted to building as a whole was discussed in the Economic Survey and I think it would not be right for me to go into that now; but out of the total building resources the housing portion has been determined on two main principles. One is that to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, that the Government have aimed at securing that approximately 60 per cent. of the building labour force should be on housing work, and this figure has been broadly maintained over the three years 1945 to 1948. Secondly, it was expected that as the new housing programme came fully under way and the repair of war damage made smaller calls on the labour force, the number working on new houses would be approximately half of the total force on housing work; and this, too, has been substantially achieved. In May, 1947—I give the figures for England and Wales unless I state to the contrary—out of a total force of 480,000, 216,000 were employed on new housing work. The comparable figures for May, 1948, were 220,000 out of 481,000.
As I have said previously to the House because the housing need is universal, because houses have to be built in each district, we had to rely very largely on taking our building labour where it was and, although there has been some slight amount of mobility, broadly speaking that is what we have been doing. Last Summer it was quite apparent that the desired spread of housing had been secured and that in order to secure the completion of houses already in the programme it should not be overloaded with additional contracts for a time. Let me say at once that I do not apologise at all for that position.
Some discrepancy between the work of the authorities and the capacity of the industry was inevitable in the early stages of a programme initiated throughout the country and carried out by 1,500 local authorities, and the administrative arrangements might have lagged behind industrial capacity. There is always a risk that the administrative machine will not be able to work fast enough for industrial capacity. Actually, the administrative machine got well ahead and the lee-way which the industry had to make up was, as everyone knows, accentuated by the abnormal weather early in 1947

and by its consequences upon industrial productivity.
Let me say that the decision to restrict for a time the number of new contracts was not a decision to cut down the housing programme. It was a step necessary to secure a more rapid completion of houses for which contracts had already been made. No amount of talk in any quarter will really show that a cut in paper contracts ought to be treated as a cut in the actual houses to be built. The effect of the decision which was then taken can be seen by those who study the Housing Return month by month. There can be no doubt that the result has been that we have now got the programme in very much better balance.
Let me give a few illustrations. The number of houses completed in relation to those under construction has increased from one to 18 in May, 1947, to one to 10 in May, 1948. The number of houses at later stages of construction is larger. In May, 1948, there were 51,000 houses plastered out of a total of 173,000 under construction, whereas, in May, 1947, there were 33,000 out of a total of 197,000. A better balance has been established between the number of houses under construction to the number of men engaged in building them. In May, 1947, there were 207,500 men engaged on 197,000 permanent houses; in May, 1948, there were 217,300 men employed on 173,000 permanent houses. As was said in the Housing Returns last month, it is our view that the programme is now well balanced in relation to the resources of labour and materials available at the present time.
Our present aim, therefore, is to keep the volume of building construction in England and Wales at approximately 180,000 houses. There are, of course, bound to be fluctuations from month to month. It is quite impossible to relate the number of houses which will be started in a particular month, under approvals given a number of months before, to the number of houses completed month by month. Some critics have, by a most curious process of reasoning, interpreted the simple aim to keep going for the present—and I emphasise, for the present—the level of construction at 180,000 houses as a decision to aim at the completion of 180,000 in 1949. Other people have taken the purely factual


announcement that we are at present completing 20,000 houses a month—I include Scotland here—as an intention to build 20,000 houses a month almost indefinitely. Neither of those statements has any foundation. The completion of houses at the present rate of 20,000 a month is due, of course, as I imagine most hon. Members appreciate, to the very large number of houses that we have at advanced stages of construction at the present time. Nevertheless, in view of the increased numbers of houses completed in recent months, it has been possible—indeed, it has been necessary, in order to maintain the level of construction—to give more approvals. Perhaps, I may give the Committee figures for tenders approved, showing the growth in their numbers: in September, 1947, 4,300; December, 1947, 5,900; March, 1948, 5,300; May, 1948, 7,800. The effect of these approvals will, of course, show itself in a few months' time in the number of houses under construction.
Now, it must not be thought that any number of houses can be built in a particular district just because the builders say so. The total number of houses which can be built in the country is, of course, governed by the amount of the national resources which can be devoted to housing, and it is also governed by the amount of timber which can be imported. It may be thought that such a statement is so elementary as not to be worth saying, but if one reads articles that appear from time to time it obviously is important to insist that the over-all limit imposed on us is the physical limit of material things. It will be within the knowledge of the Committee that, having fixed the global figure for the country, we are endeavouring to distribute it among the various localities, after consultations with the local authorities, and taking into account priority classes, like the agricultural workers, the miners, and the key workers in Development Areas. But these allocations represent, of course, the total number of houses to be put in hand for a particular period in a particular district, and it would be quite wrong to allow an unplanned increase in a particular district, because the only result would be that we should slow up the rate of building or prejudice the position of adjoining authorities.
That is why the houses which are built by licence must form a part of the local

allocation and cannot be used to increase it. I am absolutely satisfied that in present conditions, and until more houses for letting have been built, the number of licensed houses ought not anywhere to be more than a fifth of the programme. For some months the issue of licences was, except in the case of the priority classes, suspended as part of the machinery for bringing the programme into balance. I would remind the Committee, however, that even as late as the end of May the number of houses completed under licence was more than a quarter of the number completed by local authorities. This was largely due to the large number of houses built under licence in a number of districts attractive to the private builder in the early days when the number of houses for which licences were issued was left to the discretion of the local authorities. This increase, I must insist, was at the expense of the building of houses for letting by the local authorities.
It is all very well for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to plead for more houses to be built by the builder on his own by licence, but if we look at this from the point of view of those who want houses, it is our bounden duty to try to meet the wishes of those who want houses; and I am absolutely satisfied that on a free choice those in most urgent need of houses at the present time—the great majority of them—want houses which they can rent, and that the proportion of one to four private houses to council houses is, if anything, generous. I know there are circumstances in which it is possible to compel people who are unwilling to buy houses to buy them because they cannot get accommodation in any other way. That, however, it not part of our policy. We are determined to do our best to satisfy the needs of people according to what we conceive to be their free choice.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Before the hon. Gentleman passes from that point, would he deal a little with the argument that any addition to the pool of houses eases the whole housing position?

Mr. Edwards: I do not deny that if we have more houses, we have more houses. That is clear. What I deny is the rightness of building houses for people to buy when the great majority want to rent them.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: What evidence has the hon. Gentleman that the majority of people wish to have houses to rent? Where is the evidence?

Mr. Edwards: It is evidence from the local authorities. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to a little snippet on the front page of today's "Daily Herald," in which two people, who, I imagine, are associates of his in the political sense, nevertheless are defending the ban on the private builder because they believe that if the ban were totally relaxed, it would have the most disastrous effect on the rural housing programme. Anyhow, we think that within the limit which we have now set, the best course is to leave it to the local authorities to decide what this proportion should be, in the light of their knowledge of the circumstances of those in need of houses in their districts. Houses to be built under private licence must be shown to go to those who are in need. Under the new arrangements evidence that the family of the owner-occupier will occupy the house when it is completed must be produced before the licence is issued.
I turn to the matter on which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman spent most of his time. I want to deal with the cost of houses. I would say, first, that I think that the cost of house building at the present time can be best considered, not in relation to the cost before the war, but in relation to the cost of other items in the national economy. There always has been a close correlation between the trend of building prices and the general course of economic affairs. For example, after the last war it was not until we had the great slump that we had a sharp decline in the cost of building. I do not believe that one gets far in trying to take absolute terms—prewar and postwar. I think it is better to take the trend of building prices in relation to other things.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think the hon. Gentleman will do me the justice of saying that I did not use the figures of prewar and postwar. I was comparing the prices now with those when the Act was passed.

Mr. Edwards: I agree. I was maintaining that, for my part, I do not want to talk about postwar and prewar comparisons, but about the price of building in relation to other things.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear to the House whether his argument is that inflation in one price of one commodity does not matter as long as it is balanced by general inflation?

Mr. Edwards: Not at all. The hon. Gentleman has no right to interpret what I said in that way. I said that when we are talking about the price of building, we cannot talk about it sensibly unless we consider it in relation to other things. During the six years of war, as is commonly known, the level of prices over the whole field of productive activity underwent a revolution. When we took Office in 1945, we had to make our plans and carry them out on the basis of the price and cost level already established, even for those productive activities which had been continuously maintained during the war. House building which had been suspended for six years, had to be restarted and made to function, and, because of our need for houses, expanded to the fullest possible extent against the background of a price level. This was the situation of hard fact which faced any Government that took Office after the last war. It was accepted by the Coalition and Caretaker Governments, who based their plans for houses on the best estimate of the cost of housing which they could make on the facts known to them.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman pursued his argument mainly on the basis of the total cost of houses. If I do not take that method, it is not because I want to avoid any issues, but rather because I am not in a position to take the total costs of houses and use them for any kind of comprehensive argument, and, therefore, I propose to base my remarks on the tender prices of houses on which we have complete and full information. If I compare like with like, we shall, at any rate, be able to form a clear opinion as to the trend of prices. What were the estimates made by the Caretaker Government? The building of houses by private enterprise has always been regarded by the Opposition as the cheapest way of building houses. In authorising licences for the erection of houses by private enterprise, the Caretaker Government allowed a selling price of £1,200 for a house of the maximum size of 1,000 feet super. Making a reasonable allowance of £100 for the cost


of the land and development, this allows a cost figure at the rate of 22s. per foot super. On the thesis which the Opposition have adopted, but which we do not accept, it is reasonable to suppose that they expected that the cost of house building by local authorities would be higher.
However that may be, the question is—did our initial prices exceed those on which our predecessors were basing their plans? Have tender prices since 1945 been effectively controlled? The average tenders for three-bedroomed houses provided during the last three months of 1945—that is, the weighted average on which we can rely quite confidently—were: October, 20s. 10d.; November, 21s. 4½d.;December, 21s. 8d. I submit that these actual figures compare favourably with the Caretaker Government's estimate of 22S. for the cost of houses to be built under licence. It was well known to local authorities that the Minister laid particular emphasis on a good standard of housing and the provision of good modern fittings and equipment. The average tenders for three-bedroomed houses approved during the last three months of this year for which I have figures are as follow: March, 24s. 8d; April, 24s. 6½d.; May. 24s.; that is to say, an average increase of approximately 2s. 10½d. per foot super. If we put it in percentage terms, the tender prices have gone up by 13 per cent. over the period covered by my figures.
This increase in price compares very favourably with the general rise of prices. To take only one example, the increase in wholesale prices since 1945 has been over 30 per cent. compared with 13 per cent. shown by the tender figures. When we are thinking of tender figures it should be remembered that housing is an end product—the builder controls only the final operation. The industry has been quite abnormally exposed and subjected all the time to very great emotional pressure. I submit that the figures I have given show beyond any argument that we have been successful in controlling what was within our administrative competence, namely, the tender prices. Let me say that we have controlled tender prices and at the same time we have not lowered standards in any way.
In case I should be thought to be too complacent, may I assert that we are very much concerned to obtain an absolute

reduction in cost by improving the efficiency not only of the building industry itself but of all those who supply it. The Ministry of Works, through the Building Research Station, are engaged in the fullest research into building methods and materials, and are doing their best to introduce new techniques into the industry. The Minister of Works has also put in hand a number of inquiries. The Simon Committee on the distribution of building materials, which has already reported, has been referred to. The Palmer Committee is investigating the cost of building materials. The Phillips Committee is to survey the organisation of the building industry. In June, 1947, my right hon. Friend appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Girdwood "to consider and review the cost of house building." This Committee has now submitted its first report, and my right hon. Friend has decided that the report shall be published.
May I turn now to the scale of the housing programme? Reference has been made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the figure of 750,000. This was a figure adopted by the previous Government as their estimate of the number of houses required in 1945 to enable each family which wanted a separate house to have one; and it was undoubtedly adopted by that Government as a target. As has been said, we shall hit that target in the autumn. But it is not a target of any particular significance for us, because it is a figure that was based—and at the time necessarily based—on general statistical estimates of global figures. It was made originally in 1942; it was changed in 1945, and takes no account of any increase in the need which has occurred during the last three years. We are, therefore far from thinking—and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must not interpret our speeches in this sense—that by the autumn each family which has not got a separate house but wishes to have one will be able to get one. All we say is that the target set by the previous Government will, in fact, be hit this autumn.
We shall, as time goes on, find out what are the outstanding demands and how they are classified by a sifting of the waiting lists, which we intend to ask local authorities to carry out. This is a


job that will take some time, because we do want it done with care. We can take time over it, because we can be sure that in the meantime the houses which are being built are all required for urgent needs—needs both of the individual families for health and happiness, and for the requirements of essential industry.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: What is the target the Minister considers he will hit by the General Election? What is the general problem he will have solved, if it is not the 750,000? I was giving him the utmost possible ease, and being as fair as I possibly could; but the hon. Gentleman says it is not 750,000. What is it, then?

Mr. Edwards: What I said was that this autumn we shall hit a target set by our predecessors. For the rest, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must not expect to lure me into a discussion about hypothetical targets. This target was set for us and not by us.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This is a problem, and the problem was not set by us.

Mr. Edwards: The scale on which house building can continue—which is really what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is getting at—is something which must necessarily depend on considerations of national policy and on our economic resources. What proportion of national resources can we devote to house building? What supplies of scarce materials can be obtained and can be afforded, particularly timber, when we are dependent upon purchases from abroad? What proportion of our resources should be devoted, on a long-term basis, to new house building as compared with repairs and reconditioning? These are questions which cannot be answered this afternoon in the sense of giving an answer which will hold the field for all time. We can say that at present it is our intention to have a volume of house building of the order of 180,000. But these are questions which necessarily must be kept under regular review in the light of ascertained facts and of the best judgment of future tendencies that can be forecast.
I am satisfied that from 1945 to 1948 it has been right to concentrate on the establishment and maintenance of our new house-building programme, not only as a measure of social justice and for the health and comfort of those without homes of

their own, but as an essential part of our economic programme. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking in the Capital Investment Debate, he put the thing, I thought, in a nutshell when he said:
Housing is not an added or an unnecessary luxury; it is an essential part of our capital equipment necessary to carry out our plans."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1947; Vol. 445, c. 1895.]
Let me say, in passing, that, convenient though it may be to separate housing expenditure from industrial expenditure, it is most misleading to imply, as the "Economics" has done frequently, that there is no real connection between the two. On one ground alone, that of mobility of labour, it is of the first importance that we should get houses built all over the country, and in large numbers, as soon as possible. As we go along there must be factual ascertainment of the demands and needs, and that is why, in the review published of the May figures, we indicated that we would try to ascertain the demands from a study of the waiting lists, and that we would, as time went on, try to ascertain needs by surveys of local conditions—how many people ought to be provided with new houses because they are living in overcrowded or unfit conditions, and so on. This is a job which necessarily will take time; but in the light of it we shall, I believe, be able to frame our programme in the future accordingly.
In the past we have tended to concentrate on three-bedroomed houses. I think that that concentration was right in the immediate circumstances. It must be remembered that, with the parallel provision of 150,000 temporary two-bedroomed houses, we have in England and Wales some 400,000 new homes suitable for families ranging from the newly married to the married couple with three children. We do not say this represents the proportion on a long-term programme; but we do say that when we have ascertained the needs of the varied family groups we shall be able to see the precise proportions that will be required. We know for certain that we shall need more homes suitable for old people, and a proportion of houses suitable for larger families.
When my right hon. and learned Friend stated in his speech on the capital


investment programme that houses were being completed at the rate of 15,000 a month, and that he saw no reason why this could not be maintained throughout the Winter, his remarks were greeted with jeers and ironical laughter from hon. Members of the Opposition. We know today how much, in fact, he under-estimated the progress that we were going to make; and we know today how short, and conveniently short, are the memories of hon. Members opposite. They would today find it very hard indeed to deny the fundamental principles on which we have been operating, and I am convinced that they cannot destroy our substantial administrative achievement and our quite considerable housing performance.

5.8 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) seemed a little surprised that the number of houses now being constructed should have fallen below the average for the 12 years before the war. I did not expect the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to look at this question with a completely unprejudiced judgment; but I should at any rate expect him to attempt to make a fair judgment. He took no account of the fact that one set of figures referred to 1926, eight years after the first world war, and that the second set of figures which he quoted referred to a period three years only after the second world war. He took no account of such apparently trivial matters as world shortages, or even of the economic situation. Now, I do not think the situation is as rosy as perhaps some hon. Members opposite would make it out to be; but for sheer unrelieved gloom Jeremiah could not have improved on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman this afternoon.
I should like to try to look upon this question with an unprejudiced eye. Last year when the Committee debated this matter, there was every prospect that we should be faced with a drastic cut in our housing programme. There has been no such cut. The programme has come out of the capital investment cuts, in the main, unscratched and unscathed. The Government have been criticised for that. It has been said in many quarters that housing has had more than its fair share of both materials and labour. I am convinced that the decision of the Govern-

ment in this respect was right, because I believe, quite apart from health and social considerations—and they should at all times, even in days of economic stringency have a high priority—the overcrowding of families cannot be in the best interest of higher production and good output.
I believe, therefore, it is absolutely essential, even in these days, for each family to live under its own roof and in good healthy conditions. It is satisfactory, and I put it no higher than that, that local authorities have been instructed to go ahead on the assumption that the rate of 200,000 houses for England, Scotland and Wales will be maintained. Of course, we all realise perfectly well that that rate may have to be varied, perhaps downwards, although we hope it will be varied upwards, once the import programme is better defined. If there has been no drastic cut, there has been an adjustment, a much needed one. No one realised the need for it more than the Minister himself.
We now have a better balanced programme, as the Parliamentary Secretary has reminded us, which is all to the good. Last year we were measuring our housing programme by the number of foundations that were being laid, but this year we are measuring our programme by the number of roofs which have been put on. That is a considerable improvement. In the middle of last year an average of something like 18,000 houses per month were under construction. That has now come down to something like 10,000. But as a result of the adjustment the number of completed houses has risen until in May we reached the monthly figure of 20,000 houses, the highest since the end of the war.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman reminded the Committee of what was regarded as the first phase of the housing campaign, the provision of 750,000 units to provide separate homes for each family. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us this afternoon that he does not accept that target, and that it was simply a legacy which the Government inherited from their predecessors. I was glad to hear him say that, because if it is true that that target of 750,000 units is to be reached this Autumn, it is also true that there will be numbers of families throughout the country who will not have separate accommodation. We all know


that in most areas there are going to be long waiting lists of people living in other people's houses, or in rooms, or who are billetted on their families. Members I am sure can quote instances in their own constituencies.
I will quote only two instances from my constituency. In one case a small urban authority has provided accommodation for 128 families, a good record for a rural area, but there are still 200 families on the waiting list. In the case of another urban authority one family in every 10 is still living in rooms. The local authorities in these circumstances have had the most unenviable task of trying to select tenants from families many of whom have an almost equal priority. On the whole, I think that the local authorities are discharging that difficult task well, although in some cases it cannot be said to have been so well done.
Very little has been said in this Debate about the serious shortages which are holding up the housing programme. The Minister of Health has emphasised the fact that the supply of soft woods is a serious limiting factor in the housing programme, but there are other shortages. Work on eight housing estates in my constituency was held up through lack of cement. That has happened twice in the last six months, and I am sure that the same thing has been experienced by many more Members in different parts of the Committee.

Mr. Scollan: Especially in Scotland.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I am not sure that Wales is very much better in that respect, although I am sure it is better in most others. The shortages are pretty widespread. They not only hold up the housing schemes, but they add greatly to the costs, and unless costs are to be reduced local authorities will be faced with a serious situation. The Parliamentary Secretary quoted some figures in his speech. He compared the figures of private enterprise building with the figures of local authority building, which were very favourable to local authorities in the circumstances of today. He also said that tender prices had gone up by something like 13 per cent., and he argued very rightly that we must compare this to the general prices throughout industry. The point I should like to make is that

this rise in price is going to put local authorities in a difficult position.
I should like in this matter to quote Mr. Wood, who has already been quoted in this Debate by the right hon. Member for Scottish Universities. He has pointed out that it was estimated that the cost of building a three-bedroom house was put at £1,000 for the purpose of subsidies under the 1946 Act. That figure has since increase to £1,,300, which means that existing rents cover only half the costs of building. I hope that the Minister will tell us something about the report of the committee which is looking into this matter.
I think that we can look back on the year with a certain degree of relief, but when we look at the task that still remains to be done, we cannot but be appalled by its magnitude. We can measure it by the figures of unsatisfied applicants for new houses, or we can measure it by the number of houses which should have been condemned by all reasonable standards but cannot be condemned because there is nowhere to put the dispossessed people. We can measure it by the increasing number of people in urban and rural areas who are living in overcrowded and slum conditions. But looking at all this, we can still say, to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition, that this is the end of the beginning, and I would add that it is a good beginning and a sound beginning.
Now that the programme has started to gather speed, I hope that we do not lose sight for one moment of the amenities side. In the next few years hundreds of thousands of houses are to be built in the villages, towns and cities all over the country. In our generation we have done more than our fair share of vandalism. We have built better houses, but we have been responsible for desecrating as much of the natural beauty of this country as our forefathers did during the industrial revolution. Our motives were better, but the aesthetic results were about as lamentable. We have not consciously built slums during the past few years, but we have added enormously to the total sum of ugliness and dreariness. I know that the Minister is sincerely interested in this matter, but that his powers are limited. This is largely in the hands of local and regional authorities. I hope every means will be taken to make them realise their


responsibilities in this matter, and that the right hon. Gentleman will do everything he can by exhortation—and he can do that very well, on occasion—and propaganda to encourage good design. After all, it is not necessarily more expensive to build a charming house, of simple, but good, design, than it is to build one of the ornamental horrors which so abundantly litter this country. I am glad to note that in the report of the Committee on the Appearance of Housing Estates many excellent recommendations have been made, which would improve not only new estates but existing estates.
I believe that some of the fal-de-lals now adopted could be dispensed with. I can quote one instance from a charming village, where an expensive concrete wall has been built around a housing estate. A well-kept green hedge would have been far more appropriate and more charming. As I have said, now that the housing programme is beginning, as we hope and believe, to gather momentum, I hope the Minister will use all his gifts to stimulate local authorities, so that we shall not only have well designed, healthy and well-equipped houses but that we shall also have houses that will add to the charm and beauty of our country.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: One of the more amusing sidelights on our housing Debates in this Parliament has been the obvious and increasing reluctance of the leaders of the Conservative Party to face the Minister of Health. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) himself is very valiant in battle against the echoes of the Albert Hall, but when it comes to leading his party in the House of Commons he is the modern Plaza-Toro. His deputies have not been much better. We were reminded by the Parliamentary Secretary today of the last housing Debate when the leaders of the Opposition stayed like mice in their holes, not putting out even one whisker until the Minister of Health had passed by. Today they have done a little better. We have had, at least, the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) coming out first. I imagine that when his colleagues in the nest pushed him through the hole he was too old and too feeble to resist.
Possibly the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was so guileless that he did not know what was being done to him. It is even possible that, realising that the Minister of Health would speak last in this Debate, he thought that if only he could get his speech in first, everything he had said would have been forgotten by the time my right hon. Friend came to wind up. Unhappily—and this is something on which I must commiserate with him—no sooner had the right hon. and gallant Gentleman sat down than he ran slap into another Welshman, and found himself clouted all over the place by the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George). As the noble Lady said, throughout his speech the right hon. and gallant Gentleman looked utterly miserable and dejected, just like a St. Bernard dog that has run out of brandy, miles from home.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the St. Bernard does not drink the brandy himself?

Mr. Mallalieu: I agree, but this particular St. Bernard looked badly in need of it, and I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be even in more need of it when he has to face the wrath that is to come later today.
Be that as that may, the rather gloomy and rather grudging approach of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the housing achievement of the Government so far was not satisfactory. By any standards, except the impossible standard of meeting all needs at once, the housing achievement of this Government has been good. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was very careful to avoid comparisons between the present time and immediately after the first world war. He would only accept responsibility for comparisons between what was done in the last three years and what was done after Mr. Baldwin—that dynamic and ruthless house builder—came into power. Even on these comparisons we have done better in three years than was then done in six.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman made fun of the forecasts of the Minister of Health, yet when it suited his argument he came down to deal not in facts, but in forecasts. For instance, he picked up the 180,000 figure forecast for next year. We all hope and believe that the


achievement will be much higher. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman neglected the fact of the actual achievement during the past month—the 24,000 figure. I know that that is most unlikely to be maintained but, nevertheless, it has been reached, and Mr. Baldwin's Government did not touch that monthly rate until 1928, nine years after the first world war. Having done that they did not get near it again until 1933. By any sort of comparison with the performance of prewar Governments this Government have done well. There is another comparison, based on the 750,000 target, of which we have heard a great deal today. I entirely agree with both the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the noble Lady, that that target now seems to be much too low, but it should be pointed out that it was a target accepted for accomplishment in five years. It will have been achieved by this Government in under three years.
But although we on these benches, for the most part, would say that the housing achievement generally had been very good, there is not the slightest doubt that there are still some black spots in the country. Among those black spots is my own constituency, Huddersfield. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities urged that the number of licences issued to build houses to sell should be vastly increased, that it should come out at about fifty-fifty with the local authorities. From the experience we have had in Huddersfield that would be absolutely disastrous. That is what has been done there. Of the 300 or so new houses built in Huddersfield about half have been built for sale.
Those 150-odd houses built to sell really have not eased the housing position in the town of those people most in need of houses. It has certainly helped the more well-to-do people who have been able to afford to buy them, and it is perfectly right, of course, that the needs of the wealthier people should be met as well as the needs of the poorer. It is a question of whose needs are most urgent. Middle-class families, on the whole, those who have not got houses of their own, are living with their parents or "in-laws" in houses which are already reasonably large. They face, of course, certain inconvenience.
But the inconvenience for the reasonably well-to-do person is really much less than the inconvenience suffered by the poorer families who are crammed together in houses which are both small and badly built. What happens when a middle-class family living with "in-laws" is able to buy a house? They move out into that other house, but their movement does not release any accommodation for other people. Nobody else moves into their place. All that they manage to do in that case is to ease the position of people who are not suffering very severely.
The people in Huddersfield, and, I suspect, throughout the country, who have been suffering most acutely from the housing shortage are people who cannot afford themselves to buy a house. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not believe that this party is opposed to people buying their own houses. Indeed, we are not. I would like to see everybody in this country owning a house of his own, if he wants to, but the facts of the matter at the moment are that the vast majoriy of them cannot afford to do so. In a survey made just before the war, it was reported that, out of every ten people who died, nine left property worth less than £100. Conditions, thank goodness, are slightly better than that, but they are not so much improved that many people in this country can afford to pay £1,200 or £1,500 for a house. They simply have not got that amount of money. If it is suggested that they should go to a building society, it only means that, in the long run, they will have to pay for the house twice as much as they would pay if they bought it for cash. I beg my right hon. Friend, so far from listening to any suggestion that the number of houses built to sell should be increased, to watch very carefully the application of his present proposal to restore the one in five ratio.
I believe that the general housing position in the country has improved, and we are beginning to have higher hopes about it now, but I think it is important that, because the general position is getting better, my right hon. Friend and his colleagues who are dealing with housing should begin to pay increased attention to particular circumstances in areas which are backward, especially in my own constituency. We have had an appalling time there, for a lot of reasons, some of


them political. The controlling body on the local council, mainly Liberal and Tory, for a time were strongly opposed to the general policy of one in five and resisted it, and, because they resisted it, they would not go ahead with local authority house building, although the sites were already prepared. That period is now, I hope, over, but I am desperately afraid of it being revived again by the Minister's own action in permitting, wholesale throughout the country, the restoration of the one in five ratio. I suggest that he should watch particular areas where local authority building has been lagging behind, and only grant a restoration of the ratio where the local authorities have been building satisfactorily.
There is another point which affects Huddersfield, most of the West Riding and many other areas as well. Besides housing, there is in my area an enormous amount of very necessary industrial building going on at the present time. There is a vast extension being built to the Imperial Chemical Industries plant at Huddersfield, and a big reservoir is also being built in that area. Many of the textile mills are quite rightly being renovated and rebuilt, and a lot of them needed it badly. The result of all this is that the demand for labour for work other than housing is very great, and, at the present time in Huddersfield, of all the building trades labour in the town, just under 15½ per cent. only is engaged on housing. That is far too low, and I would appeal both to the representative of the Ministry of Works who is now present and to my right hon. Friend to watch very carefully this question of the priority which is given in expanding industrial areas. I suspect that this industrial work, important though it is, has been given a priority above housing which it should not have had.
I ask the Minister, and the party of which I am a Member, not to be too pleased with the tremendously successful general housing achievements of this Government until they have gone into the black spots which we find in many parts of the country. I believe further that the Minister of Health, so far as the general issue is concerned, is doing a remarkable job, but that, once he has done that, he should concentrate all his great energy on the black spots. Once

he has put these right, he can then go forward to the other work referred to by the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey of providing not merely separate homes for everybody in the country but separate homes of which every one of us can be proud.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Marples: I listened with some interest to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu) who showed characteristic Yorkshire tenacity in keeping to the narrow front of housing in Huddersfield, but I want to concentrate my remarks at the start upon the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I regret to see, is not now in his place.
The Parliamentary Secretary made great play with the fact that this Government were controlling costs, and he gave an indication of how they were doing it. He compared tender prices between 1945 and 1948 and he said they had increased by 13 per cent. in that time. As a preliminary it must be made clear how a builder makes up his tender price. He visits the particular site, envisages the operations which are necessary, works out how much it will cost for lorries and manpower. Thus he finds the total cost and divides it by the amount of work to be done. So he produces a rate for each operation and this rate is inserted in the specifications and the contract. That will meet agreement from the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), whom we are all glad to see in his place and whom I would congratulate on what we hope will be a very successful move for him. The tender price then goes to the Ministry of Health, but is of course subject to no modifications and variations taking place. If any substantial variations do take place, as a general rule the contract is null and void, and extras are added by the builder. These extras will, of course, be computed so that he does not make a loss.
Therefore, tender prices are no basis for a comparison at all. I will give two examples to illustrate that point. My own firm erected nearly 2,000 temporary houses for the Ministry of Works. The Ministry promised to deliver them to the site complete in every respect. They did not deliver one house complete, and that broke their contract. There will be a claim against the Ministry of Works for something between £50,000 and £100,000,


towards which we have already received about £34,000. This state of affairs happens on almost every contract, and the contracts with the Ministry of Health for houses are no exception. The extras for permanent houses in one district comes to between £100 and £300 extra on every house. For the Parliamentary Secretary to produce tender prices as a basis of comparison shows a technical ignorance which is simply appalling in this Committee.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is doing my hon. Friend a disservice, because he specifically pointed out that he was comparing the rise in tender prices from what they were in 1945 to what they are at the present time, and the assumption is that the extras would have risen in something like the same proportion, so the comparison would stand.

Mr. Marples: I am sorry that the Minister of Health shows equal ignorance, for the simple reason that the extras have no relation to the tenders rising.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member, I am quite certain, is permitting his belligerence to cloud his judgment. What I said was that in 1945 there would be a tender, and, as the hon. Member says quite properly, there would also be extras in 1945 so that the tender would be no indication of the final cost of the house. So far, I think I carry him with me. But in 1948 the tender price also would be no indication of the final cost of the house, but it is reasonable to assume that the extras would have moved in the same proportion as the movement in the tender.

Mr. Marples: That is exactly the same point as the right hon. Gentleman made before, but I bow to his superiority in knowing the difference between belligerence and judgment. I would say this to the right hon. Gentleman: if the tender price in 1945 could bear no relation to the final cost, and if the tender price in 1948 could bear no relation to the final cost, why on earth compare them, because it is some hypothetical figure which has nothing to do with the final cost? And only the actual final cost matters. In Northamptonshire the amount of extras added to the tender price varied as between six contractors. The lowest increase was £100 and the highest over £300 per house. The extras bore no relationship to tender prices.
To compare the tender prices is quite fantastic because people in the building trade know that practically the greatest curse of the trade is to tender below what it will actually cost the contractor knowing full well that the rhythm of production will be disturbed by the building owner. When this happens the contractor can always claim not to make a loss. He must be allowed by law to recover his costs. Recently my firm tendered for a job at cost price but someone beat us by tendering at least £80,000 lower knowing full well that the rhythm on the site would be disturbed and they could recover their full costs plus a profit. If the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Benn Levy) has any comment to make on that I shall be glad to hear it.

Mr. Benn Levy: I really did not want to intervene, but the comment I would make apropos of the conflict between the hon. Member and the Minister of Health is that it is quite a simple matter of logic. As I understand it, the conclusion is not acceptable because the comparison between 1945 and 1948 ceased to be relative as it contained two factors and not one. But if it contains two factors and both are variable both can be comparable.

Mr. Hicks: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that the idea is as old as the hills of putting in a contract at a figure, where it is clearly realised that the contract will be broken and consequently there will be a charge for extras?

Mr. Marples: That reinforces my argument that the Parliamentary Secretary is technically ignorant. If the point is as old as the hills he should not have used the tender price figure as basis of comparison. It is unreal. He should use the final cost. That is what matters and is real. What has happened in this Debate has reinforced my views formed after having read this weekend all the previous housing Debates in the life of this Parliament.
I would suggest to the Committee that this housing problem can be divided into two main, distinct and separate parts; first, the social aspect and, secondly, the technical aspect. The social aspect deals with such things as occupying and owning the house, and who shall receive the subsidy. The technical aspect deals with


the assembling of building materials by the technicians and the trade to produce the house completely habitable for occupation. The social side should clearly decide the social aspect, and technical considerations equally clearly should decide the technical aspect. Let me deal with the social aspect first. The occupying of a house should be by test of a man's physical needs. Physical possession and occupation should be given to those in physical need. Generally speaking, that is done on a points system throughout the country. Now as far as ownership as distinct from physical occupation is concerned, both sides of the Committee disagree. We on this side think a man should be allowed to buy or rent a house as he thinks fit. Hon. Members on the opposite side would prefer that the ownership should nearly all be vested in the local authority and that the citizen himself should have no choice in the matter.
Now for the subsidy. So far as this is concerned, sooner or later, this Government, or the next, will have to face up to a serious problem because at present four out of every five houses are being subsidised by the State. Quite wealthy people are receiving a subsidy paid for by people without the same means. Surely financial need should secure financial assistance and physical need should secure financial possession. There is no reason why Lord Nuffield should be able to get a council flat and that poor people like myself should have to contribute towards it. There is no reason why a Cabinet Minister with a salary of £5,000 should receive a subsidy and why I, with £1,000, should contribute to his rent.

Mr. Scollan: On that point, is not the hon. Member aware that there are municipalities that for a very long time have placed the rent of subsidised houses on an economic basis and granted rebates to the families occupying them according to their economic needs? In some cases they have had to pay the complete economic rent.

Mr. Marples: That is so in a few cases, but in the majority of cases the occupant of the house receives the benefit of the subsidy. Certainly in my constituency that is so. In Liverpool and Manchester the occupant of the house receives finan-

cial benefit. This is true of most of the country.
That is all I shall say on the social considerations, but conclusions arrived at on social grounds have no relation or significance to the technical considerations. I would define the technical problem as the assembly of building materials speedily and quickly. The aim must be to erect the maximum number of houses in the shortest possible time and at the lowest possible cost consistent with quality and producing a good job. What is wanted is high speed, low cost and good quality. Only technical considerations should govern how the house should be built. Whether it is to be let or sold does not interest me from the point of view of this technical argument. At this stage of the argument I am only interested in how the building materials can be assembled into houses at the speediest possible moment. We first have to consider the building industry in its wider aspect, the building of hospitals, schools and flats, as well as houses, because house building is only a narrow part of the building industry.
From the point of view of its wider aspect, the Ministry of Works Report on the Placing of Management and Building Contracts, 1944, on page 68, paragraph 24, says:
The housing programme can only be solved by a long-term building programme which is steadily pursued and which is related to the capacity of the building industry (without working overtime) that results from the manpower programme.
So there are two distinct programmes—the building programme and the manpower programme. Not a word so far has come from the Parliamentary Secretary about the manpower programme. He referred entirely to the building programme. This fault continues all through these Debates. The fundamental aim of the Government is to co-ordinate the building programme with the manpower programme. If they increase the building programme, they will have to increase the manpower programme. The speed of movement of the two will be dependent upon the speed of the slowest.

Mr. J. Edwards: The hon. Member does me an injustice. I devoted a fair amount of time to the distribution of building resources in labour terms and I broke it down into housing terms. Then, when


I talked about the programme being in better balance, I again gave manpower figures in relation to houses. In fact, I could not have done much more.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman merely gave the number of people who are building houses. He did not say how they were to be increased or reduced. If his Ministry has six changes of policy in 18 months in the building programme, what is to happen to the manpower programme during that time? Is that to be altered six times in 18 months too? Every time the building programme is altered it is necessary to alter the manpower arrangements. If he is to double his building programme he must double his manpower. Manpower increases take five years, because that time is necessary in order to train craftsmen.
One of the difficulties in the industry is that of apprentices. The jerky and erratic manner in which building orders have been placed by the Ministry of Health has resulted in ten of my own apprentices having to sweep the yard because they had no bricks to lay and no other skilled work to carry out. The trade has lost a number of apprentices. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works knows, these men are going out of the industry. There are 625,000 craftsmen in the industry as a whole and each year there is a 4 per cent. wastage. Four per cent. of 625,000 is 25,000 That means that it is necessary for 25,000 apprentices to enter the industry each year for training. If the erratic delivery of orders by the Ministry of Health is permitted to continue, there will not be an industry to enable the next Minister of Health to build. There will be no trained apprentices. The repercussions of this policy will not be felt by this Government but by the next, which I am certain will come from these benches. That is the reason why I am most anxious about this problem. The skilled craftsman will not be replaced.
If the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister of Works want further evidence, it is contained in the report of the London Master Builders Association, No. 5, of 1948. There is a joint council between the men and the management to discuss apprenticeship. The report says that they received a large number of applications to cancel indentures. If a man has spent

two or three years in the building trade he has gone some way to learn his job. He perhaps needs another couple of years to complete his apprenticeship. Is it not a tragedy for this country that after three years' training, he should go into the Merchant Navy or leave to work as an unskilled labourer elsewhere? That is what is happening, because no attention has been paid to co-ordinating the building programme with the manpower programme. The report of the Central Council for Works and Buildings said:
The result of the whole building programme will be largely determined by the success of the Government in making the building plan coincide with the manpower plan.

Mr. Gibson: On the question of apprentices, which I agree is most important, will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much concern the building industry paid to that problem between the wars?

Mr. Marples: All I can say is that we built 350,000 houses a year in the years just before the war. That was because the apprentices were well trained by the building industry and there were enough of them.

Mr. Scollan: There were unlimited supplies of labour and material. The hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of that figure.

Mr. Marples: If I were ashamed of 350,000 houses, I should certainly be most ashamed of the paltry total which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned this afternoon.
A manpower plan is the key to the problem. The Government must decide how many men are to be in the building industry over a long term. It is no use saying how many they will have for this month and then altering the figure in six months' time. The programme must be planned on a minimum period of five years—the period of apprenticeship. The Cabinet must decide what number of men we can afford to have in the building industry. When that is done, the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Health between them must decide what proportion can be spent on housing and what can be spent on other matters. The fundamental point is that the manpower programme and not the building programme is the key. The building programme must be fitted in to give a smooth rhythm to the men already employed in the industry.
What has happened so far is that the orders have been given so jerkily and so erratically that one moment the building materials industry have no bricks and six months later they have millions of bricks. The building trade lose their apprentices. The professional organisations also have difficulties. Quantity surveyors and professional men such as architects are experiencing the same difficulty. Recently I had an interview with the President of the Institute of British Architects. Precisely the same kind of thing is happening in that profession. They do not get work steadily and smoothly. It comes so jerkily that they have not sufficient work to keep their pupils fully employed.
So much for the wider aspect of the building industry as a whole. The second technical problem is on the narrow aspect of house building. The problem is to build the maximum number of houses in the shortage possible time at the lowest possible cost. There are two main ways in which to build houses. The first way is that private enterprise should build for the local authorities under a contract with a rigid specification and a rigid set of quantities. The second method is that private enterprise should build on its own for what are called speculative purposes when, in other words, they are their own bosses. They make their own technical decisions on the spot. Without a shadow of doubt—and I do not care which expert speaks on this—when private enterprise builds for itself and makes its own technical decisions on the spot it can build 20 per cent. cheaper and 20 per cent. faster—

Mr. Diamond: And 50 per cent. shoddier.

Mr. Marples: I will deal with the interruptions as they arise, and it will not take me long to deal with that one. Does the hon. Gentleman really think that he or any local authority can check up on a builder's work?

Mr. Diamond: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I also am interested in building. I would say without hesitation that the whole problem is that it is very difficult indeed, especially after work has advanced to a certain stage, for a local authority to check up on the work. Of course, it is for that reason that speculative builders

are able to build shoddy stuff which contract builders are not able to build.

Mr. Marples: All I can say of the contract builder—and I know that the hon. Member for East Woolwich will agree—is that no local authority can check whether a building has been properly erected in every detail. They would need to have an architect behind every concrete mixer and one behind every bricklayer if they wanted to do that. When a man is laying bricks he can either lay with the frog, which is the cut-away portion, either upwards or downwards. If he lays the brick frog downwards, with the cut away portion facing down, he uses less mixture and does not do as good a job. Neither the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond), his firm, nor any local authority can check up on that. The interruption is absolutely senseless.

Mr. Braddock: What is done depends on the decency and the honour of the builder.

Mr. Marples: I am indeed grateful to the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) for answering the interruption of his hon. Friend the Member for Blackley. I hope that the hon. Member for Blackley and the hon. Member for Mitcham will have their debate outside.
I should like to give three common sense reasons for my contention that private enterprise working for itself, builds quicker and cheaper. First, there is the cash element. Private enterprise does not get the cash until it has finished the job.

Mr. Braddock: Yes, it does.

Mr. Marples: But the contract builder gets 90 per cent. on even the materials that are dumped on the site because he includes that in his certificate to the local authority. And when the Government build by direct labour, as they did recently with the Mobile Labour Squad, of course they pay no attention at all to costs. They built a permanent house for £2,505 and a temporary house, without any cost for fittings or materials for £1,158. They pay no attention to costs because the money comes from the Exchequer each week. The contract builder can get his money as the materials are on the site, but, generally speaking, a private enterprise builder cannot get his money until the job is finished.

Mr. Braddock: He gets it before he starts.

Mr. Marples: That is really the key to the success of private enterprise building. If they are on the site and a difficulty arises with material or labour, a speedy technical decision is made there and then. Again I must call in aid as a practical man the hon. Member for East Woolwich. He knows as well as anyone that every day on a building site something goes wrong which requires a decision on the spot. A local authority will not give that decision on the spot. The simple reason for that is that if the man makes a correct decision, he gets no promotion, apart from his normal promotion, and if he makes a wrong, decision his committee come down on him like a load of bricks. There is no incentive at all to make decisions.

Mr. Scollan: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the committee makes a decision? What nonsense. I have been on a housing committee for years but I have never heard of them making any decision.

Mr. Marples: I am quite sure that if the hon. Gentleman were on any committee they would never arrive at any decision.

Mr. Scollan: The hon. Gentleman said "Make a decision on the spot." They have never made any decision on the spot.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Butcher): I think it would be well if the hon. Member were allowed to continue his speech.

Mr. Marples: I am sorry not to give way and to give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of interrupting again, but I have a time limit, and there are other hon. Members who wish to speak. Also I have had my fair share of interruptions already.
So far the local authorities have built more expensively and more slowly than private enterprise, and the Government have now given in Circular 108 of 1948 permission to private enterprise to build houses provided they build them singly and they find their purchaser at once. So private enterprise has the unenviable task of building one house in Mitcham, another in Blackley, another one in another part of the country. How on earth does the Minister of Health think we shall get efficiency that way? The only way private enterprise can function

successfully is by building 100 to 150 houses on the same site, getting a rhythm and flow, and using first rate technical people to build 100 or 150 houses, not one. It is quite impossible to spread over a single house the costs necessary to pay first rate technicians.
I now have two criticisms to make of the Minister. I gave him notice that I would make them, and if he is not in his place there is nothing I can do about it. In any business enterprise there are two essentials for success. The first is administrative and technical efficiency, and the second is the correct psychological atmosphere. On the technical side, with which I shall deal first, the right hon. Gentleman has proved practically as ignorant as his Parliamentary Secretary. I say that because he is fettering the building industry, as a technical industry, with instructions that are based solely on social considerations.

Mr. Scollan: I think the hon. Member is better at throwing bricks than laying them.

Mr. Marples: At least I throw them when I am standing and not sitting. This is proved by the four to one ratio because that is the ratio which is determining how houses shall be build technically. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to understand that I am not interested in what happens to the houses after they are built. This Government can have them all. The local authorities can have them all. They can even be blown up. The point is that the method of building a house is determined solely by this four to one ratio which was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman in these words:
It certainly is not a figure based on statistical inquiry … but because it seems to me to bear the proper relationship to the social situation of most of our people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1946; Vol. 420, c. 454.]
He may be right about it bearing the right social relationship. I do not know. All I do know is, if that is imposed upon a technical industry then it must necessarily mean reduced technical efficiency unless technical considerations predominate. I suggest that the Minister has not paid sufficient attention to technical details.
Another criticism is that he is extremely reluctant to accept any technical suggestions which come from this side of the


House. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to our "annual outing," to the annual discussion we are having today on housing. At the last Debate 12 months ago a suggestion was made from these benches that there should be a working party for the building industry. It has taken this Government 12 months to appoint one, and the teams of reference, as far as I know, have not yet been published.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Durbin): In HANSARD.

Mr. Marples: In other words, it takes the Government 12 months to adopt the suggestion. If the Government themselves take 12 months, why pillory the industry for being slow? The same thing happened with all the other suggestions which were made from this side. It took seven months to agree to the suggestion about a committee on the distribution of building material.

Mr. Braddock: We were waiting for you to do something about it.

Mr. Marples: We will do next time we are in, of course. It took 15 months to set up a committee on costs which was suggested by this side. And so it goes on. My criticism of the Minister is that he does not pay sufficient attention to the technical details which are necessary. When all is said and done, the trade, not politicians, will have to build the houses. My second criticism of the Minister is even worse—that it is quite impossible to get human beings to work well unless the psychological atmosphere is right and they are happy. At the present moment in the industry they are not at all happy. Then men are worried about the future. Apprentices are worried about their future, and the management are stubborn because of the insults which have been given to them by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health from time to time.
I can assure him that he will not get the willing co-operation of this industry or of any other industry unless he is just a little more reasonable and tolerant than he has been in the past in his utterances, and he ought to know perfectly well that it does not do to go about like a bull in a china shop. I remember when we had a Debate on newsprint, that the right

hon. Gentleman stood there and hit the Despatch Box all over the House of Commons. And what happened? The hon. Lady the Member—

Mr. Diamond: On a point of Order, Mr. Butcher, may I ask whether it is in Order to refer to a Debate which we had some time ago.

The Temporary Chairman: I was following the hon. Member carefully and I have no doubt that he will leave that rapidly.

Mr. Marples: Merely by way of illustration, Mr. Butcher, I was trying to point out the error of the right hon. Gentleman's ways. The hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) refused to go into the Division Lobby. If he had said to her, "My dear, you look nice in the New Look," she would have followed him like a lamb into the Lobby, and that is the method he should apply to the building industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Bad taste."]

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman is now beginning to justify the title given to him.

Mr. Marples: I do not know what title has been given to me by the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "The vermin."]

Mr. Marples: Oh, the vermin. There must be no greater expert on vermin than the right hon. Gentleman himself. I have no doubt his acquaintance with them has been pretty close these last few years, especially since he has been in office. There is one more complaint I have to make against the right hon. Gentleman. Not only does he spew out hate on the soap box but he gives a lot of inaccurate facts from time to time when at the Despatch Box to secure debating points. I shall give an illustration of that by referring to the last Debate on Economic Affairs which the right hon. Gentleman wound up.

Mr. Diamond: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Butcher, is it in Order for the hon. Gentleman, having covered the Debate on the Press, now—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman can safely leave the conduct of the Debate to the Chairman.

Mr. Marples: Thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Butcher. I want to refer to


a Debate which the right hon. Gentleman wound up when he referred to housing. It was on the Economic Survey which included housing. He said this:
I do not want to make this argument over and over again because it is familiar to everybody, but we have built in the first two and a half years at the end of this war more houses than were built in ten years at the end of the 1914–1918 war—and that in addition to the repairing of all the war damage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1947; Vol. 445, c. 2008.]
That was a statement by the right hon. Gentleman during that Debate. It was reported in full in the "Daily Herald" and is about one of the greatest falsehoods ever uttered in this House.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies, to deal specifically with this question. I will hand him these figures and I want him to either substantiate or withdraw them. In the two and a half years after the German war we built 315,452 houses—[An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] The authority is the right hon. Gentleman's own housing return. In the two and a half years after the Japanese war we built 372,769 houses. In the ten years ending 30th September, 1928—after the first war—we built 1,194,720. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman has created out of his vivid Welsh imagination something like three-quarters of a million houses which he used at the Despatch Box as an illustration to convince the House. So that the right hon. Gentleman shall have no alibi whatever when he replies, I have here every statement from HANSARD together with my summary, which I shall hand to him after I have spoken and shall be grateful if he will deal with it and not, as he usually does, dodge it.
I have spoken longer than I ought to in a rather disjointed and erratic way because of numerous interruptions. There was a great deal I wanted to say about housing but I can say only this: Unless the right hon. Gentleman pays less attention to political matters and more to technical matters, this country will be in an awful mess.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Gooch: I desire to join in the congratulations from this side of the Committee to the Minister of Health upon the progress of housing generally. My purpose in intervening in

the Debate is to talk for a short time about the problem as it affects the rural districts. The importance of housing to agriculture, as outlined in the Agriculture Act, has been established by that Act. I think there is general agreement that in housing generally the rural districts have lagged far behind the towns and cities. I congratulate the Minister on the fact that in the rural districts the houses are going up, and I hope that before very long there will be a complete transformation in many of our villages. As one who has spent most of his time in rural areas, I am delighted with the real progress that has been made. I do not need to mention here, however, that much remains to be done. We must remember that in the rural areas in housing generally, there has been neglect for many years.
The Government have given the highest subsidy ever for the building of rural houses and, in particular, houses for farm-workers. It offers tremendous encouragement to local authorities who are prepared to get on with the job. In the presence of the Minister, however, I want to express my disappointment that, although the houses are going up in the rural areas, so far very few farmworkers have been able to secure a tenancy. From the detailed report of the Ministry I notice that in the period from 1st April, 1945, to 30th April, 1948, only 6,293 permanent and 852 temporary houses built in the rural areas have been let to farmworkers—a total of 7,145 out of the tremendous number built in the rural districts. The figures to the end of May disclose that, out of the total number erected, 7,051 permanent and 871 temporary houses have been let to farmworkers. I suggest to the Minister in all seriousness that when we consider the size of the problem from the standpoint of our food producers, this is a very miserable achievement.
The Minister will tell me—and has done previously—that he cannot dictate to a local authority to whom they shall let their houses. What he does is to provide the highest subsidy on record. In other words, he provides the incentive for local authorities to get on with the job of building. But, after all, when they have erected the houses, it is their job to let them. Now that priority has been placed on the building of houses for farmworkers the Minister should consider the possibility of issuing definite directions to local


authorities to let more houses to farm-workers.
I admit that in many areas there is a reluctance on the part of farmworkers to apply for new houses. The reasons are, first, that the rents being asked by local authorities in many rural areas are far too high. For houses built supposedly for farmworkers, some rural district councils are asking rents of anything up to £1 per week. To expect a farmworker to pay nearly £1 a week for rent and rates out of a total minimum wage of £4 10s. is expecting too much. A farmworker is reluctant to saddle himself with such a financial burden. I have never been an advocate of building down to a wage, but rather of building up to a standard, and I think the suggestion should be made to local authorities that they should encourage farmworkers to apply for new houses. This can only be done, however, by overcoming the rent difficulty.
The suggestion has been made of pooling subsidies but I do not think that would help the position of the low-paid worker. The Minister said that subsidies are used to enable local authorities to build houses at rents within the reach of tenants. If any concession in rents is to be given, it should be given by the local authorities to the farmworker. There is another reason why farmworkers do not apply for new houses. Many thousands of them who are badly in need of new accommodation live in tied cottages. They dare not let it be known that they are applying for new council houses, because the personnel of the bulk of rural district councils in this country consists of farmers and landlords. Although the people are badly in need of the houses, that is the reason for their reluctance to apply for them.

Mr. Hurd: Can the hon. Member explain a little more fully the mind of the farmworker in his reluctance, because I cannot understand it.

The Temporary Chairman: It would be very much better if the Debate were confined to the subject which is before the Committee.

Mr. Gooch: The need is very great, although the applications are not forthcoming in the desired numbers. There is a great need in the countryside for more houses and I hope that, in the building

of new houses, local authorities will not concentrate mainly upon providing for newcomers to the industry. The people who should have first claim on them are those who have been living under appalling conditions in the villages for years and whose needs are greater.
I had a letter a short time ago from a parish council in my Parliamentary Division. It indicates the state of affairs which still exists in many rural parishes in this country. The letter says:
My parish council were unanimous in directing me to request you to bring to the notice of the Ministry the appalling condition of housing and sanitation in this parish. There are between 20 and 30 houses which were condemned as unfit for habitation prior to 1939, but still inhabited. There are about 17 houses without an atom of garden, the inhabitants having to carry their lavatory pail (some through the house) along the main street for anything up to 300 yards to deposit on allotments. In another instance, three families are compelled to use one lavatory situated in a separate garden 50 or 60 yards along the road. We have requested the Rural District Council to collect the night-soil, but without result.

Mr. Sargood: Could my hon. Friend tell us whether those houses were built by private enterprise, or by the local council?

Mr. Gooch: The note which is sent to me says that these houses have been occupied very many years and have been in a state of disrepair for many years. I think I am safe in saying that they were built by a private landlord. The letter continues:
My council have reluctantly taken this step, but consider it their duty to get something done in this apparently forgotten agricultural village
That is only one instance of many which I could quote. When I drew the attention of the Minister to the letter, he took immediate action and I hope that, before long, conditions will be very much improved in that parish.
I wish to touch on a point which has not been touched upon so far today and to express the hope that whatever the Minister has in mind in regard to the new housing programme, he will go very slow on reconditioning. I notice that the Central Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union have been on a deputation to him asking him to restore Government grants for reconditioning rural cottages now in disrepair. Those houses have not fallen into disrepair during the lifetime of the present Labour Government, but were in disrepair 40
or 50 years


ago, due to the gross neglect of private owners, but it is now suggested that the Central Landowners' Association and the Farmers' Union should go cap in hand to the Minister asking him to give a grant in order that they can do work which they should have done years ago.

Mr. Vane: May I correct the hon. Gentleman by pointing out that the Housing (Rural Workers) Act was not to make good arrears of repairs, but to carry out improvements, which is an entirely different thing. It has nothing whatever to do with repairs.

Mr. Gooch: The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) knows that although the idea of the Act was to make additional accommodation in houses, many thousands of cottages which were put forward for reconditioning were structurally unfit and neglected and should have been demolished 40 years ago. That was the type of house put forward as being extremely desirable for reconditioning.

Mr. Vane: And turned down as not eligible for grant.

Mr. Gooch: I am suggesting that if the Government have more money to spend on houses, it should not be spent in doles to landlords to repair property which should have been demolished years ago and which has fallen into disrepair due to the neglect of the owners.

Mr. Vane: It has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Gooch: Reference has been made to the fact that there are some black spots in the country. But black spots are not to be found altogether in towns and cities. There are many black spots in the villages. The fact that there they grow flowers in old-world gardens does not completely hide the defects which are to be found in many houses on the countryside. In regard to tied cottages, I have been reading the Conservative Charter for Agriculture. I have read it with great interest, but I am not going to talk about many of the things contained in it for the simple reason that many are already in operation. But there is one point which comes into the picture today on the question of rural housing. What does the Conservative Charter for Agriculture say to farm-workers? The message it gives them is that tied cottages should be retained. If

any farmworker thinks he ought to vote for the Tory candidate at the next Election he ought to think again, because, if there is anything of which the farmworker wishes to get rid, it is the tied cottage. The Charter says:
We will introduce grants and loans for the reconditioning of farmworkers' houses and make such grants obligatory.
In other words, the Tory policy is tied cottages for farmworkers plus patched up property that ought to have been demolished many years ago. I hope the Minister will go forward with his great plans not only to provide cottages in towns and cities, but also in villages and that when those cottages are built in the villages, they will be built in community centres and provided with such conditions as will enable the farmworker and his wife and family, for the first time in their lives, to live in decency, comfort and happiness.

6.28 p.m.

Colonel Wheatley: I can go a long way with the hon. Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Gooch) in what he said at the beginning of his speech. I am glad that he is pressing the Minister to get on with the building of houses for agricultural workers, and I agree with him very much on the question of supplying those houses with proper sanitation and water. If the Minister will get on with that, he will get the thanks of the agricultural industry. But I cannot agree with the hon. Member at all, in saying that we should not do any reconstruction of houses which are now uninhabitable or very uncomfortable. He must know very well that many houses are now in occupation owing to the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, which are extremely comfortable, sanitary and habitable and he must know that the grant was not given for repairs, but for reconstruction. He must know, indeed, that many of those houses were almost pulled down, and grants were given if only one wall was left and the house was practically rebuilt. The Minister did great harm to the agricultural industry when he did away with the Act. There would have been many more good houses in the countryside if that Act had been in operation during the last two or three years.
I am certain that tonight, at a quarter to thousands of people will be listening-in to hear the result of this


Debate—thousands who are living in appalling conditions of overcrowding and conditions in which none of us would want them to live for one moment longer than is necessary. I think that housing is above party politics, or it ought to be, and I should like it to be, because I am certain that not only in this Committee but in the country, everyone wants to see housing increased and the people put into proper accommodation. But many difficulties have arisen, not the least of which, unfortunately, is that either we have the wrong Minister in charge or else that Minister got off on the wrong foot from the very beginning. If he had taken as his aim the construction of all the houses he could get, by whatever means possible, I am certain that we should have got further on with the job than is the case at present.
I do not want to stress the need for housing. We all know it. We all know of terrible cases which are brought to us every time we go to our constituencies. One matter which is worrying our constituents a great deal is the question of the rising cost of the houses. It has already been pointed out why this is happening. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) drew attention very forcibly to the delay in the arrival of materials on the site. We know of cases where materials have been dumped on one site, there has been a change of policy, and then they were moved and dumped on another site. That all costs money. Such conditions would never arise if private enterprise were dealing with that particular building. Another reason for the high cost of houses which the Minister could alter is that the subsidy is not paid until the house is occupied. The Parliamentary Secretary will, perhaps, correct me if I am wrong in that. It means that the local authorities are paying interest on borrowed money much longer than they need do. Surely it makes little difference to the Exchequer if the money is paid directly the house is started rather than when the house is occupied by someone.
I believe, too, that we could get on with the work much more quickly if we could cut out a lot of regional interference by the Minister giving a direction to his regional officers that they must not delay, as it seems to most people they do, for the sake of delay, for the sake of saying "no," for the sake of putting

up some new suggestion. I had a case brought to my notice the other day when some essential fencing was wanted to protect gardens and to save children from accidents through running into the road on a new estate where there are no pavements as yet. This was held up because the regional official said, "Instead of having a wire fence, why not have a privet hedge?"—as if that would keep out dogs and prevent children from running into the road. These are things which cause delay and much irritation among the people who are to live in the houses.
I am sure that we are all very glad that the Minister has now given permission to private enterprise to take some part in the housing drive by building on private account. It is a pity that the Minister has said that the number of houses to be built on private account is to be part of the general allocation of the area. I should like to see the allocation given to the local authority and a percentage allowed outside that to builders on private account. A great deal is said on the other side of the Committee about the question of houses to let. It is almost looked upon as a crime if a builder wants to build a house. It is no crime for a man to want to build a house or for an operative to want to work in his own trade or for a man and woman to want to possess a house. Hon. Members opposite talk about it as if it were some crime.
I disagree with the suggestion that the vast majority of people who now want houses want houses to let. I should say that there is not a vast majority, although there may be a majority, but a vast number of people want to build and occupy their own houses. Hon. Members say, "How can they afford it?" They can go to the local authority and borrow money. There are many ways in which they can do it. Many men who came out of the Army not only bought their land but had sufficient money saved to put down the necessary deposit to get a house built, and even had a builder willing to do the work, but they were not allowed to proceed. I raised this question with the Minister of Health in a Debate two or three years ago. Surely anyone living in the conditions in which some of these people are living would be only too glad to get a house in any way possible? The days of high


interest have to a large extent gone by. People can go to the local authority and borrow the money.
I desire the Minister, if he will, to give directions to, or make arrangements with, the local authorities to ensure that the licences that are now to be given to builders to build on private account shall be well looked into, so that we shall not have, as we had a year or so ago, people living in houses which they sell at a good price, having another house built at a lesser price and going into that. That is depriving the people whom we want to get a house—those who have not now got a house—of the chance to buy one. A simple administrative direction could go out to ensure that that scandal shall not happen any more. It has happened in many cases. It is a scandal and the Minister should put his foot down and see that it is not allowed.
I have no connection with the building industry, but I think it is unfair to the industry to suggest—and I resent the suggestions that are being made, particularly from the other side of the Committee—that builders are out to cheat when they can or are out to put up bad work. That is a great pity. It is an aspersion upon a great and good industry that such remarks should have been made in this Committee.

Mr. J. Edwards: The hon. and gallant Member has made an interesting point and it might be convenient for me to say that the point he made about seeing that the houses went to the right people, has already been put in Circular 108 of 1948. It says:
Houses for sale built under licence must go and be seen to go to persons in need of houses.
The point is further elaborated.

Colonel Wheatley: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his intervention and I am glad to know that that directive has gone out. As I say, the matter was a real scandal two or three years ago.
I wish to appeal to the Minister to let private enterprise take its fair share in the job of providing houses. I should like to see, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) suggested, the percentage allowed for building on

private account gradually brought up at least to an equality with that for houses built by local authorities. I should like to see this percentage reviewed, say, every six months to see how matters are going. Let us take the political aspect out of this business of building houses. Let us get on by trying to think of the human aspect of the matter, and get houses built. Let the Minister take as his motto, "Let the builders build."

6.39 p.m.

Mr. West: The hon. and gallant Member for Eastern Dorset (Colonel Wheatley) made certain observations which will be echoed sympathetically in this part of the Committee, particularly when he was dealing with the point that houses should be allocated to those in the greatest need. That is something of which we entirely approve. Then he went on to suggest giving private enterprise a free hand. The two arguments just do not coincide. If we gave private enterprise a completely free hand, we could never be sure that persons who most needed houses would get them. I therefore hope that the hon. and gallant Member will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments any further.
I was disappointed with the attitude of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). When I have listened to him previously he has delivered speeches with moderation, and at any rate not with impertinence. I feel that he did himself rather less than justice in the way in which he wound up his speech today. I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment, but I felt that it was necessary for an hon. Member on this side of the Committee to say how strongly some of us disapprove of such observations in Debates of this nature.
The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) who opened the case on behalf of the Opposition, spoke moderately and with consideration. There were one or two points with which I was in agreement. Of course, like all the other speakers on the other side of the Committee, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman overlooked one essential factor. He complains that houses are not being produced in great enough numbers and seeks to suggest that we ought to have exceeded the pre-war production of houses under Tory rule. I say, in reply to that argument, that if


the Minister of Health had had it within his power, if he had the conditions which existed in 1938, when there were no shortages of materials and no difficulties of labour, and if he had the financial resources of that time, he could have produced in this country far more houses—great as his achievement has been up to the present time—for the benefit of our people than the party opposite did during the years when they had their opportunity.
A matter upon which I should like to place emphasis is that in the arguments which have been raised from the other side of the Committee there has been a complete lack of appreciation of the difficulties which confront not only this country, but other countries in Europe, in regard to their building programmes. Other countries are confronted with problems as great as ours. Indeed, our record and our achievement far outstrip those of any other country in Europe. At the present time, all Europe is clamouring for the essential materials for the building of houses. There is a great demand for soft wood timber. The countries from whom we used to get large imports of timber before the war are not now able to let us have anything but a fraction of what was available in those days. That position must reflect itself in our building capacity.
Before the war, Finland was able to export to us large quantities of timber, but is now only able to export a fraction of the former amount. Sweden is in the same position. She is using her labour to convert her forests into fuel. Both countries are in great need of something that we can give them. If we can give them more coal we can get more timber. We must recognise this essential fact, that where-ever we turn we come to the question of coal. If we can provide coal we can obtain more steel. If we can have more steel we can provide more manufactured goods. Then we can get more timber. Indeed, if we could export more coal to those countries now we could get more timber immediately. Therefore, there must be great emphasis on coal. It is required for the production of steel, cement, bricks and glass. It is, and remains, a limiting factor.
I come from a constituency which produces coal. We are producing coal very well. Our record is good. We are hitting the target, but notwithstanding the great

efforts that are being made in the national interest, many miners are still living in deplorable conditions. I do not blame my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health for that. The condemnation must fall upon the party opposite. The houses that were built were shocking dwellings anyhow. There are many in such a condition that no people ought to be allowed to live in them. Nevertheless, miners have to live in those houses at the present time.
We have been looking forward to a greater allocation of houses for the mining community. I know that the Minister has made a declaration that the miners should have priority in this respect, but we are still not getting as many houses in our area as I think we ought to get. Week after week I am confronted with people who are in great distress because they are living in these appalling housing conditions. We cannot expect men living in such conditions to do difficult, arduous and heavy tasks. They must have decent, civilised conditions. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us encouragement on this matter and a further allocation of houses to coalminers.
On my next point, I support in some measure the view expressed by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities in regard to production per man in the building trade. This is due in a large measure to the allocation of materials. I would ask my right hon. Friend to say, when he replies to the Debate, whether he is completely satisfied that the co-ordination between his Department and the Ministry of Works is as good as it ought to be. I think it has been the experience of the local authorities and of building contractors that work is held up, the cost of houses to local authorities is increased, and there is an unsettled feeling among the men because they are compelled to stand off. This is due to the fact, as experienced in my own area quite recently, that material—cement—which was apparently in abundant supply, could not be delivered in time on the site. I would ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that there is closer co-ordination between his Department and the Ministry of Works about the supply of materials.
I wish to refer to another matter, and then I will conclude my speech. It is the increased cost in the building


of houses to let. The subsidy which the Government gave under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act was, I think, upon the basis that the cost of the house would be in the region of £1,000. The subsidy was allocated on that basis and it was expected that the rent of the house in urban areas would be about 10s. per week excluding rates. Now we find that by reason of the increased costs—my hon. Friend agrees that the costs have increased by about 13 per cent. on the tender price only; not the actual finishing cost of these dwellings—if those houses have to be let at an economic rent then the people who need them must pay a rent increased beyond their capacity to pay. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to give further consideration to the question of subsidy. It is time that this matter was thoroughly examined and the whole position reviewed.
Having made those criticisms, if criticisms they be, I would say at any rate on behalf of the people whom I represent, that we recognise the great work which the Minister of Health has been doing with regard to the provision of houses. We appreciate the great difficulties which have confronted him and admire his determination and vigour in getting houses built. We look forward to the time when our economic position will be improved and the materials position easier and when decent homes can be provided for all the people who need them.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West), though I feel tempted to do so, into his interesting exploration of the broader economic aspects of the housing problem, except to say that, if he turns to the Government's Economic Survey for 1948, in paragraph 182 he will find this remark about housing. It affects his constituency, which is a coalmining one, just as it affects mine, which is mainly an agricultural one. It says:
At the end of 1947 some 100,000 houses were roofed and awaiting completion. Special efforts are being made to hasten the completion of houses in coalmining and agricultural areas.
It may very well be that special efforts were made, but, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Northern Norfolk

(Mr. Gooch), they cannot have produced quite the result which was intended in the Economic Survey, for we find that the number of houses which have been occupied by agricultural workers specifically—presumably that means those in houses for which the subsidy has been paid—reaches the figure of only 7,000-odd in the three years since the end of the war.
I would, therefore, like to go into the matter of housing for agricultural workers a little more fully. I make no apology for doing so, because the Government have quite rightly set a very high target for agriculture, a target of production which can only be reached with sufficient manpower; and we find that they fell short of their manpower target during 1947 by no fewer that 30,000 men, compared with the figure which had been set in the Economic Survey for 1947. The reason was, I am told—and all the inquiries I have made tend to confirm it—mainly the shortage of houses for agricultural workers. Without the houses we shall not get the workers for agriculture, and without the workers, we shall not get the agricultural production which is required.
It may be within the recollection of hon. Members—and I am sure that it will be within the recollection of the Parliamentary Secretary—that last autumn the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture apparently got together to see how many houses should be built by local authorities for those engaged in agriculture. A questionnaire was sent to agricultural executive committees; and the result was what the Minister of Health felt quite rightly was merely a statement of their long-term needs, based possibly on the assumption that every worker going into the industry would need a house, an assumption which it was unnecessary to make. He therefore asked the committees to think again, and on 6th May, in answer to a Question which I put asking him whether the committees and the local authorities had got together and framed more precise estimates, he said that the committees and local authorities were still engaged in framing estimates.
It may be that already some statement or report has been published as a result of the deliberations of the agricultural executive committees and the local authorities; but, if any such report or statement has been published I have not seen it,


and neither have some of my constituents who have been inquiring about it. I should be glad if the Minister who replies to the Debate would give us some idea whether a solution has been reached and whether a target for the number of houses for agricultural workers needed for the country as a whole and for each county has now been arrived at. Then we shall have something to go on.
It has become clear from this Debate that back in 1945, when we all began to apply our minds to this matter, hon. Members of all parties both underestimated the probable demand there would be for housing three years after the war and over-estimated the country's capacity to produce the houses. The result is that we find the Minister of Health obviously a very disappointed man. He cannot build as many houses as he would have liked. He cannot build as many houses as his hon. Friends at the time of the General Election suggested might be built. I was very interested to hear the hon. Member for Pontypool explaining the reason we cannot have as many houses as we would like. I wonder whether by any chance during the General Election campaign he pointed out to his constituents that there might be difficulties, such as he has described today. I know many hon. Members failed to describe such difficulties.

Mr. George Thomas: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool did not take part in the General Election campaign.

Mr. Renton: That lets him out to some extent. I do not know the date of the by-election when he was returned, but he may have been able to profit by the mistakes of his hon. Friends. At any rate, we now find that the Minister of Health is not quite his own master as to the number of houses that can be built; and, instead of a glorious and gigantic major military operation for the housing programme, we are to have a nice gentle "balancing" performance. The Parliamentary Secretary today to some extent reassured the Committee that the Ministry of Health would be making the best of its limited opportunities; but let us not forget that the opportunities of building permanent houses are to be limited, as has been quite clearly laid down by the Economic Survey and as is recognised in

all quarters of the House; and let us also bear in mind that when we have made the fullest possible use of the limited opportunities of building permanent houses there will still be a lot of homeless people who will be glad of any kind of separate roof. It was for that reason that last December I took advantage of a good opportunity, which I had, of starting a long Adjournment Debate, to ask that the fullest use should be made of Service huts. I was glad on that occasion to find that the Parliamentary Secretary, who replied for the Government, agreed with me then. This is what he said and I agreed with him:
We do not like huts, but as long as we have to use them we shall use as many as we can and the ones we use we shall make as habitable as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1947; Vol. 445, c. 975.]
What I am interested to discover is to what extent the Government have fulfilled the proposition so admirably and so succinctly stated by the Parliamentary Secretary. I am a little handicapped in going into the figures of this matter, because I find that, in answer to a Question which I put to the Minister of Health last December, it was stated that:
Approximately 9,325 families were accommodated on 31st October in temporary wartime buildings taken over by local authorities in accordance with the circular. In addition approximately another 9,997 families were occupying temporary wartime buildings considered suitable for housing, most of which are being managed by local authorities on my behalf."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1947; Vol. 445, c. 84/85.]
That makes a total of nearly 20,000 families accommodated directly under the supervision of the local authority or by them as agents for the Minister at 31st October. But, when we turn to the latest Housing Return we find that the position at 31st May is shown under the heading "Use of existing premises—Service camps" and it says that local authorities have accommodated 20,172 families and Government Departments 225. It is, therefore, impossible for one to find out on any fair basis of comparison, what progress was made during the seven months from 31st October to 31st May in converting Service huts into separate and very much valued homes for the people.
However, we do find that during the month of May only 339 families were newly accommodated in Service camps under the supervision of local authorities. If May is any criterion of the previous six


months, one cannot feel that very much progress was made between 31st October and 31st May, nor indeed very much progress from 9th December, when we had that most interesting Adjournment Debate, and when the Parliamentary Secretary stated so admirably the proposition with which I agreed. I wonder whether the Minister, in winding up the Debate, can give us some idea of the extent to which use has been made of Service huts to provide accommodation since then.
To return to the question of the building of permanent houses by local authorities, it appears to me that local authorities have been frustrated. I am in the exceptional position of having no fewer than 11 local authorities charged with housing duties in my constituency, which I think is pretty far above the average. Although their performances vary considerably, I am quite convinced that they have all been doing their best. I am equally convinced that they have been frustrated, and are still be frustrated, by prohibitions, orders, counter-orders, and changes of plan on the part of the Ministry of Health and, where the Ministry of Works are concerned, on the part of the Ministry of Works.
There have been cases within the past year or eight months, to which I have drawn the Minister's attention, where local authorities know that they have the labour available and have been assured by contractors that the materials are available, but who still have been refused permission to build. These are local authorities with long waiting lists, and it is pretty galling for them to be refused permission to have those houses built. After considering the matter fully, it seems to me that for local authorities house building is still more like a game of snakes and ladders than a major military operation; and I beseech the Government to do what they can to get rid of red tape, as they said in the early days they could do, and simplify the whole procedure.
One feels tempted to use rather hard words about the Minister. I am not going to do so, because frankly I feel very sorry for him; I feel he is not his own master, but I do suggest he should listen to the advice which has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), and try to be as good a psychologist as I am sure he thinks he is. I

believe that it is a human failing with most people that they think they are good psychologists. Let the right hon. Gentleman try to be a good psychologist and let him remember that the building of houses requires a united effort and that the use of wild words might destroy the unity necessary for that effort.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. George Hicks: I want first of all to thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) for the very kind reference which he made to me in the speech with which he opened this Debate. Friends on both sides of the House have told me how very much they regret that I am going to leave this House. Generally I tell them it is a long time away yet and I have remarked that they might consult the electorate before then. They have agreed, and I have told more than one, "You may be here just as long as I shall be." I am very thankful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his kind references to myself and also for the statement which he made in regard to housing. I would like to apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary and to my hon. Friends who sit on these Benches for keeping them here listening to me on this subject, because we know all about this problem.
I am not going to talk about the needs of the problem. I can only stress its great urgency. Everyone who wishes to do so can find out the exact position in his or her own area by getting into touch with the local authorities. There are specialists in those areas who can produce the facts, and when those facts are gathered together they give a complete picture of the national position so far as housing is concerned. I am satisfied that the Ministry of Health is doing its best to tackle this problem. I am not one of those critics who say to the Minister, "You should not change your plan." Some hon. Members on the other side of the House think that the Minister ought to state his plans and stick to them regardless of the facts. If the position is against us, it is wise to change the plans. That is the obvious thing to do. To say that we should lay down plans and never change them regardless of what happens from time to time, is perfectly ridiculous.


Hon. Members opposite have been setting up Aunt Sallies and knocking them down to their own satisfaction, which makes me smile.

Mr. Renton: Would the hon. Member concede that in the case of an individual project, an increase in cost may be caused if after the plans for that project have been approved, they are changed?

Mr. Hicks: The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) was not the only one who stuck up Aunt Sallies. I am not referring to him. I heard the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) talking on this subject in this Debate. He seems to me to have had very bad indigestion, and he ought to get some treatment for it, because I could not understand the vile stuff he was spewing out. I am satisfied that the Ministry is doing its very best in tackling this housing problem. I congratulate it also on building the majority of houses to let in the proportion of four to one because I think it is the right thing to do. I know that when the Minister introduced the scheme there was a great deal of foreboding and gloom about his proposition, and that it was thought it would be attended by failure. But today he comes along and says how successful it is, and everybody has to agree that it is successful.
We are discussing today the question of the number of houses built and how many are being erected in agricultural and mining areas. Everyone knows that there is not the necessary nucleus of building trade workers in the agricultural and mining areas with which to build the houses there; they have to be imported from other places, and the material has to be transported. We also know that the number of houses built is small in comparison with what is an economic unit. When one is building, say, 100 houses instead of only nine or 10, one is able to get all the necessary machinery, and the trades following on in perfect rhythm one after the other, which makes it possible to produce the houses more economically.
I agree that we must build for the agricultural worker, but I would point out—although this is a point which will be made later tonight—that the agricultural worker was not bombed as badly during the war as was the town worker. I know

that agricultural workers have been badly housed in the past, and that they must have sufficient housing accommodation, but I would emphasise that the people in the towns suffered many more bombs and much more shattering of their homes than those in the agricultural areas. However, be that as it may, I congratulate the Government on building houses in the agricultural and mining areas, because they have to attract people to those areas.
What the Minister has done by way of cutting down house-building has been necessary because of the national economic position. That is obvious to everyone. If we are fair, we must admit that the Government had to contract the building programme because of the world economic situation. Had they been free to carry on, they would have said, "Certainly, let us continue building." I would point out to the Minister that we have a building organisation of employers, workpeople and technicians sufficient to build at least 400,000 houses a year. We can do that provided we get the necessary approval. We have plenty of bricks and steel available in the country—I know there is a shortage of timber which is an essential part of house building—and I would beg the Minister to expand the building programme at the earliest opportunity in order that we may use to the full the available employers and technicians, when the operatives will follow. Once the building industry is reduced to below its peak efficiency, there is always some difficulty in getting it restarted on the technical, administrative and workers side.
With regard to the additional cost, as I have told this House of Commons on many previous occasions, the necessary brickwork does not represent more than 20 per cent. of the cost. I have to keep emphasising that fact because many people do not know it. They think that if we can get bricklayers to lay another 80 bricks a day the cost will come down. I said 20 per cent. because I hoped to be challenged and to be able to say that it was less, but nobody appears willing to rise to the bait.
For the first time in the history of the building industry the operatives, through their trade unions, have a guaranteed week. For many years I worked at the trade with my sleeves rolled up and was very poorly paid all the time. In


the end, I decided to roll down my sleeves and to put on my coat, and I got a much better income. It pays better to wear a hard hat instead of a soft one. Before the unions were in a position to get a guaranteed week for their members, the men were put off for every shower of rain, fog or frost, and had to lose the time. The people who eventually lived in the houses never gave a thought to the men who built them and who had such a miserable existence. For many years we fought for the guaranteed week, and we hope to get some guarantee in this matter also.
I congratulate the Ministry of Works on the introduction of the £100 licence, although I wish it were more. However, it is a step in the right direction. When I was in the Ministry we had to impose a £10 limit on each house. When we remember that we had 10 to 12 million houses in the country, if only eight million had had £10 spent on them that would have represented a sum of £80 million—a figure we could not afford. As I say, the Ministry has now decided to extend the figure to £100, and I hope they will extend it even further later on. I know that not very much can be done for today, but, if possible, a surveyor as well as a contractor should be employed so there is someone to check up on the work done. As I have said before in this Chamber, when the work is left entirely to private enterprise one is never sure what the total bill will be.
It has been said today that private enterprise should be left to do these things. I have seen houses built by private enterprise with a bay window on the first floor and with nothing but two inches of breeze concrete, plastered on both sides, and roughcast on the outside so that when people look at such a house they think that it is a lovely, solid building. But let them get inside and they will find out the difference. Unless a clerk of works and a good architect are constantly supervising a structure, nothing lends itself more easily to adulteration than a building job. I could deceive hon. Members of this Committee quite easily over the building of a house if I wished to, but I prefer to be open about it. Unless the Minister gets local authorities, their clerks of works and other representatives capable of looking after everyone responsible

for any building, the finished job will not be of a very high quality.
With regard to the general outlook, my hon. Friend who is to speak later in this Debate, and who was chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council, has figures to show how much the present output has increased owing to the trades and trade unions getting together, and how, in turn, that has reduced the costs. I wish to support the Government in the things they are doing and to congratulate them on their policy, but I would appeal to the Minister, when increased materials are available, to raise the labour force of the industry to above one million. Unless we do that there will be disappointment, which will take a long time to rectify. I am certain that when the labour power, the technicians, the employers, and all the operatives are properly organised and "married" we shall have no reason to regret it.
I would like to refer to something which was said by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities. He said that we are using building labour out of all proportion for house building. I know. I worked with him when he was at the Ministry of Health. I broadcast with him when we built the millionth house after the 1914–18 war. But I am certain of this—and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not tell hon. Members—that at one period there were 60 out of every 100 building trade workers employed upon housing, and 40 out of every 100 employed upon commercial and other work necessary for the country. The normal position should be 60 per cent. of the building trade labour employed upon the commercial and other building, and 40 per cent. upon housing.
I do not want to say any more. I am talking rather fragmentarily, because I have been sitting here since 2.30 trying to catch your eye, Sir. I am obliged to you for seeing me at last. I want to congratulate the Ministry in general on their efforts, on the spirit which has actuated them and on the common sense which they have shown from time to time in changing their plans when this has been necessary, and in discussing movements and not "monuments" as some hon. Members opposite have done. They say, "Let us do something and keep it


there"—that is a monument. We on this side are a movement. In so far as the Ministry have movement, the right movement and a live movement, I congratulate them.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) is a practical man and he has a very kindly nature, but I was surprised that even his kindly nature enabled him to shower congratulations so repeatedly upon the Minister of Health. I also want to look at this problem of housing from a practical point of view, although I may not be able to shower so many congratulations upon the Minister.
I want the Minister to consider for a moment the difficulties and frustrations which face the individual employer and the local authority in applying priority for agricultural housing. There are many examples of the frustrations which I could give the Minister, but I am sure he knows about them. I ask him to consult more freely with the men in the counties who are trying to do this job. His Ministry, his regional officers and, indeed, the whole team will get on a good deal faster and better if he will do that.
So far, the Minister has persisted in his refusal to carry on the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. The hon. Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Gooch) commended the Minister for letting that Act lapse and for putting nothing in its place. All I would say is that it makes it extremely difficult for the owner of property to do what he would wish to do in reconditioning and enlarging cottage property if he is not to get any kind of financial assistance, and if he is still tied to a maximum rent of 6s. a week. This is the position today. It is virtually impossible for small owners to do what they wish to do, and what they now have the means to do—which they had not before the war—in putting these houses in order, unless they can get some assistance from public funds.
Let us be quite clear on this point. Not a penny of public assistance goes into the owner's pocket. The benefit is entirely for the man who occupies the house. The Minister—and I was surprised to find that the hon. Member for Northern Norfolk, who is President of the National Union of Agricultural Workers, agreed with him

—is condemning thousands of farm workers to live in bad conditions, and he is also hampering the food production campaign.
The Minister pins his faith almost entirely on local authority building. What is happening with local authority building from the point of view of agricultural priority? In Berkshire the rural district councils have let very few houses to agricultural workers. One council has let seven, another has let three. That is out of all the houses which have been built since the war. The rents of those houses—they are new council houses—are 21s. a week. That is, of course, a high rent for a farm worker to pay, and there is a good deal of mystery in the rural districts as to how these rents have got so high. When we were discussing the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act in March, 1946, the figure suggested as a probable average rent for these agricultural cottages was 7s. 6d. They have gone up from 7s. 6d. to 21s.

Mr. Bevan: Is the rent of 21s. inclusive or exclusive of rates? The rent of 7s. 6d. was exclusive.

Mr. Hurd: The 21s. is an inclusive figure, but, of course, as the Minister knows very well, the rates would not be very high, and even if one compares 7s. 6d. exclusive with 21s. inclusive, there is a very wide gap. When the Minister replies, I hope he will deal with that point. We should get on very much faster and more economically in providing better housing for the agricultural community if the Minister would relent and put aside his political prejudices, and assist and encourage the reconditioning and improving of existing cottages, and also allow more private enterprise building.
The hon. Member for East Woolwich was quite right when he said that the conditions in the agricultural areas are different from those in the towns. In the agricultural areas we have as our building teams many small units—small firms of builders who are able to build one or two houses at a time. The Minister considers that these small builders are grossly inefficient. He gave that opinion in answer to a supplementary question of mine the other day. However these men are there. They have the skill and the organisation. We must allow them to get ahead faster than


the Minister proposes in this ratio of one to five.
I want to give one example of what is happening. I have been doing battle with Ministers during the last few weeks on behalf of an ex-Service man who served six years in the Army, four and a half years of which were spent overseas. He has taken on four acres of land which he is cultivating intensively. Everybody agrees that is so. He has cleared the land and is growing potatoes, strawberries, winter greens and so on. This man is living in a hovel with his parents, his wife and three children. He has been trying to get the Minister of Agriculture to sponsor priority for a house. Of course, the Minister of Agriculture can only do that if he is satisfied on food production grounds. The Berkshire agricultural executive committee are satisfied, but the Minister of Agriculture has become so over-awed by the Minister of Health that he will not put forward this case as one of priority on food production grounds; he says that this man must apply to the local council for a private building licence.
I have taken this matter up with the local council. They have no fewer than 150 applications for private building licences, and in each case the applicant has acquired the land and has obtained the approval of the council and of the town and country planning authority to build a house. There are 150 of those cases. According to the most optimistic estimate, the council will be able to allow 20 licences a year. That means that this smallholder is expected to wait seven or eight years to be allowed to build himself a house. A council house in the village would be of no use to him; he must have a house on his holding. I am sure that in many such cases food production is being hampered and real hardship is being caused to, deserving people because of this insistence that private enterprise should build only one house out of five.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) would, no doubt, say that the smallholder should not want to build himself a house, but the smallholder is not all that class conscious. He wants to make a home for himself and his family, and he has a stronger ambition—he would like to own his home, I ask the Minister whether,

where there are practical grounds—and we have these small firms of builders in the country—and where there are food production grounds, he will look much more sympathetically at these applications and allow them to go through without too much red tape at the regional offices. Time and time again one finds that these applications have to go through not only his Department on a regional level but the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Agriculture, too. It takes many months to tie everything up and, in the meantime, people are suffering through bad houses and in many instances food production is suffering, too.
I have tried to be practical. I hope that when the Minister replies on this point of agricultural priority in housing he will also be practical and that we shall not get a deluge of political prejudices against private enterprise or against the landowner. That is really irrelevant today.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Kinley: In view of the number of Members who still wish to speak in this Debate, I will condense my contribution as much as I can, although I want to say quite a lot to the Minister and I want to make an appeal to him to give special consideration to the housing problems of the blitzed areas.
I would like, first, to draw the Minister's attention to the uncomfortable fact that the present cost of building is a growing difficulty for the local authorities. A house which before the war cost £500 to build, and being built by the local authority had to be built with borrowed capital, carried a rate of interest, together with sinking fund, which would average five per cent. That meant, on the £500 house, a payment of interest on the borrowed money at the rate of 10s. a week. Today, that rate of interest—reduced to three per cent.—means, if we allow half of one per cent. for sinking fund, that on a £1,200 house £42 a year is paid in interest alone. In other words, 15s. a week has to be paid to the moneylender. It involves a high weekly rent, further increased by the local rate contribution. I want to remind the Minister that in areas like my own, where the basic industry is dock working, the loading and unloading of ships, where the basic rate of pay is £4 12s. 6d. a week, if we have to charge between 25s. and 30s. a week, with rates, for these houses


we shall impose a most unfair burden on the dock workers, who are restricted to their £4 12s. 6d.
The next point I want to make is that ours was a very congested area before the war. An overcrowding survey prior to 1939 showed that to house our people with a home for every family we were involved in the provision of an additional 5,000 houses. Our total number of houses was 17,000. We needed an additional 5,000 houses to provide a home for each family and to abate overcrowding. We could not build any of those in our area. We should have had to build every one of those houses outside our boundary, because there was no room for any more inside. The year 1939 found us needing 5,000 houses. The war came, and of our 17,000 houses 2,043 were completely demolished by bombs—one in eight. At a later period, when local authorities were invited to make application for pre-fabs, we hoped that we might be able to replace the 2,000 houses which had been demolished. We therefore applied for 2,000 pre-fabs. We got 850. Now, in addition to the old need for 5,000 houses to abate overcrowding—which still remains—we need 1,200 houses to make up the 2,000 which were demolished by bombs. This is one of the most bitter things. We cannot do any permanent building in our own boundaries, yet the overcrowded houses are still there. We have hundreds upon hundreds of families still outside the town. We are unable to provide accommodation to which they can come back. No Government Department has had any special powers given to it to enable it to depart from existing legislation.
The point I wish to make is this. The Minister will have a fair knowledge of the number of occasions upon which he has been approached by Bootle and other authorities similarly placed for assistance in their difficulties. We have thousands of families overcrowded with, so far as we can see, no hope of permanent homes of their own for years to come, unless we can get some assistance which hitherto we have not had. I ask the Minister to contrast the position of the blitzed area with that of the unblitzed area. A small unblitzed area not very far from the Merseyside has been able to provide itself, since the war ended, with 150 per-

manent houses. I ask the Minister to agree that that local authority may now be considered as "1939-plus" so far as the provision of houses is concerned—that is, plus the 150 houses they have now built. Bootle, having lost 2,000 houses, would need to build 2,150 to be in the same position as that place which was not bombed at all. I hope the Minister will understand, from that illustration, the extra help which must be given by the Government and Govern-Departments to the areas which were blitzed and which, without special assistance, will not be able to escape from the difficulties now surrounding them.
In closing, I appeal to the Minister to come to inspect the blitzed areas, to see for himself what is needed and to decide for himself whether, under existing legislation and under existing arrangements, there is any possible hope for the 5,000 families in Bootle who still need houses and to whom the local council, in spite of their efforts, can offer no hope. There are all those people who have been married since 1939, during the war and since demobilisation, and those marriages have added another 600-odd to our list of families awaiting an allocation of corporation houses. I invite the Minister, understanding the deep suffering that is involved in such a housing situation, to come to Bootle to examine the position for himself, and to give the local council, which at present is at its wits' end, the benefit of his advice. If he can persuade the Minister of Works to come with him, they may possibly together make decisions on the spot which would ease the hearts of a large number of people in the Bootle area. If he can do that, I for one will be pleased and very much relieved.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I think it would be difficult to find a greater contrast between two towns than there is between Bootle, which is represented by the hon. Member who has just spoken, and Cheltenham which I have the honour to represent here. However, both towns have this in common: they both have a most serious housing problem. In spite of all that has been done since the war—and I do not want to underestimate the results of the efforts of my right hon. Friend—the problem still remains as urgent as ever. I find that I receive just


as many letters as I ever did drawing attention to deplorable housing conditions. Among my constituents whom I interview each weekend a large proportion are still faced with a housing problem. I therefore want to say to the Minister that I hope he will realise that, in spite of what has been achieved, there is still a great deal more to be done, and that the urgent need is, not to contract the housing programme, but to expand it.
I know his difficulties. I know the other priorities which have very serious claims on resources. However, I think he may be fortified by using the argument which was advanced by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), that housing, which is the first of the social services, is the only one which has been cut down since the war. In the other social services there has been expansion, and in every other aspect of the national life one is expected to do more—and more has been done—than in prewar times; but in housing, which is a prime necessity, it is taken for granted that the economic position of the country is such that we cannot afford a programme equal to the needs of the people.
I wonder, however, how much longer we can afford, as a nation, to allow these deplorable housing conditions to continue. It is not only a question of the suffering which the people have to endure, but the real danger to the moral life of the nation; for family life is being broken up. There are many husbands who have to live in one place while their wives live elsewhere. When a new baby is born, instead of being the source of happiness it ought to be to the family, it is a source of worry, the family having to solve the question of where the baby is to be accommodated. There are many anxious people who live in furnished rooms who have to leave those rooms when they have babies. All this is having very serious effects on the whole life of the nation. I hope that my right hon. Friend, therefore, will bear this in mind, that the housing of the people ought to be pursued with every possible vigour.
What we must ask ourselves is whether it is possible to speed up the rate of house building. The question has been raised about the actual output of the builders themselves, which is a very important fac-

tor. I am hopeful that as a result of the setting up of the Working Party for the building industry, which has been announced, there will be good results, and that we shall have in the building industry a more efficient instrument for the housing of the people. Even as things are at present, we find that some local authorities are able, in spite of the difficulties of the times, to be more successful in house building than others. Housing has gone on for three years since the war under these conditions, and so I ask my right hon. Friend whether there is any pool of experience in which the more laggard authorities could learn tie methods by which the more progressive and successful ones have been and are able to house more of their people. I am quite sure some good might be obtained from such a pooling of experience.
Now that the local authorities have been responsible for so long for building houses, I wish the Minister would have a little more confidence in them, and perhaps relax some of the control from Whitehall, which no doubt was necessary in the earlier stages. It is the experience of several local authorities that if they were given a freer hand—and I think the time has arrived when the Minister might give them a freer hand—they would get on more rapidly with the job. I know that he is as anxious as any of us to have as many houses built as possible, and I hope he will consider in what ways and to what degree local authorities may proceed with their building programmes without consulting his Department at so many stages, and see whether, by that means, the housing programme could be speeded up.
The question of the cost of housing has been raised, and the matter of the subsidy. I know that local authorities are very disappointed that the Minister is continuing the subsidy at the same rate for the coming year. That subsidy was fixed in 1946; and then it was estimated that, with the subsidy from the Government and the contribution from the local authority, it would be possible to let a three bedroomed house at 10s. a week. Owing, however, to the increases in cost, so far as my own constituency is concerned, a comparable three-bedroomed house now can only be let at about 17s. a week. That is a very big increase


within two years. Part of the increase, of course, is due to the increase in the interest rate from 2½ per cent. to 3 per cent.

Mr. Nigel Birch: Surely not. The Act was based on 3⅛, per cent., I think.

Mr. Lipson: Yes, but I am talking about the period when it was possible for local authorities to get money at 2½ per cent. Now that rate has gone up to 3 per cent., which has added something like 2s. 2d. a week to the cost of houses in two years. The cost of repairs has gone up also by 1s. 6d. a week. Now, it is unfair to put all this additional cost on to the local authorities They will not stage a strike and say that because of the increased cost and the burden upon the ratepayers they will not build houses. The Minister knows that. They will not, because they are alive to the needs of the people, and they want to see all their citizens comfortably housed. I ask the Minister to have another look at this subsidy. He has said that he expected that prices would fall and that the subsidy would prove in future to be adequate. Would it not be better to face the situation as it is, increase the subsidy now and to reduce it, if need be, when prices come down. In Cheltenham, the local authorities have a rebate system, and it is proposed to pool all the subsidies for all the houses and revise all the rents. That has caused trouble in some towns, and local authorities would be able to avoid that if the Minister would consider revising the subsidy.
The Minister has recently announced that he will allow private enterprise to build houses in the proportion of one to four. I think that the Committee should be aware that, so far as the local authorities are concerned, that will not mean any additional house building by private builders in the coming year, because the allocation has already been made. The zonal conferences took place in April and May, and local councils have taken up all their allocations; there is nothing left over for the private builder.

Mr. Bevan: As I may not be able to reply to all the points in detail later, I would point out now to the hon. Member that, as the Parliamentary Secretary has already explained, new approvals are coming out all the time. These approvals

ought to go into house construction fairly quickly. For these, one in five will apply, and there is a refinement which I have mentioned in the Circular, and to which I would like to call the attention of the House, that where a local authority has not gone to tender for all its past allocations, it can include the one in five in those allocations.

Mr. Lipson: So far as concerns the actual houses going up, the important thing is that the councils are in a position to build all the houses allocated to them. If any go to private builders in the future, it will not be in addition to the council allocations; they will have to come out of those allocations. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be a little less rigid, a little less doctrinaire concerning private enterprise in this matter, and show a little more confidence in the local authorities? In my own area, and no doubt elsewhere, nothing like a big enough proportion of the building industry is engaged in building houses. It is a fact that there are some private builders who, through their own resources, could put up a limited number of houses. Would it be possible, where the local authority is satisfied that private builders have those resources and can build the houses without detriment to the council's building programme, to allow them to get on with the job? I do not claim that this would make a substantial addition to the number of houses built, but it would mean that a certain number extra would be built. When the need is so urgent and there are builders in the area, who, if they were free to do so, could build the houses, I think that they might be allowed to do so.
It may be argued that when private builders build houses, they do not go to the people most in need of them. The practice of my own authority in this matter is that, where private builders wish to build houses, permission has only been given on condition that the names of the persons to whom the houses are allocated are approved by the local authority, who do not give that approval unless satisfied that the need is there. In practice, this means taking some people off the council's list and allowing the private builder to house them.
Everyone was pleased when it was announced that the amount of money that could be spent on repairs to existing


houses was raised to £100 without the need of a licence. That has not worked out in practice in the way in which the local authorities thought it would. Under the existing system, my local council had a ceiling for repairs of £1,595 a week for the remaining six months of the year. They have now been told by the officer of the Ministry of Works for the area that their ceiling has been cut to £638 a week for the next six months, although they themselves have been allocating under the existing system something like £1,164 a week for this purpose. This means that the local authority will in fact have less money to spend on repairs over £100 than before. That is causing a great deal of disappointment to local authorities. Circulars come out and raise hopes in their minds as to what is going to happen, but, in practice, there are many snags.
While I appreciate what has been accomplished by the Minister, I ask him to agree that this is not the time for complacency about the housing problem. If much has been achieved, still more has to be done. We still have a long way to go before the right of every citizen to have a home of his own has been achieved.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Mackay: I am glad to have an opportunity of saying a few words in this Debate, and I would like to follow some hon. Members opposite in the remarks which they have made. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) has congratulated the Government on all that they have done, but he asks them to do more. We have had many appeals to increase the housing programme and the number of houses to be built, but there seems to be little recognition by hon. Members opposite of the limitations in regard to additional building of this kind.
I have been amazed at the way in which they have failed to face this problem. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), in opening the Debate, made an attack on the Government because they were now exercising a contraction in the social services greater than had even been done before, but he overlooked the fact that during the war we had no building at all. One does not get away from that fact. He said that we

were not telling the country that we were prepared to exist on a level of 60,000 or 70,000 houses less today than we had each year for 15 years before the war. He went on in that strain without intimating the number of houses which he thought it was possible for the country to build today. I think that it is little short of dishonest for hon. Members to go on in this way in housing Debate after housing Debate, never facing, in the House or in the country, the atrocious conditions in which we and Europe are living with regard to housing.
When the hon. Member for Cheltenham painted a correct picture of the enormous need for houses in this country today, why not link up that with the fact that the need of European countries is greater than that of this country because of the bomb damage, and that a large part of our building needs are tied up with the requirements and demands of Europe. We are tied up in the E.R.P. programme as to what we can import into this country. The whole of the building programme of this country is defined and determined by what we are to be allowed. Hon. Members opposite smile at this, but I wish that they would face it in a more realistic way. Unless they do so, they are not doing their duty to the country.
I represent a constituency which is a part of the worst blitzed city in England, Scotland or Wales. In Hull we have, through the blitz, lost more houses than any other city. That is officially recognised. It is a most difficult problem, with 10,000 to 12,000 people wanting houses. It is a constant problem and a constant worry. I do not think that we as Members of Parliament do the Committee any service, or do our duty to the country, unless we have the courage and the honesty to tell the people that the houses which they require cannot be built in these numbers, because, we cannot get the necessary raw materials.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Is the hon. Member suggesting that any bricks, or any cement, or any timber that might come to Britain from Eastern Europe can have anything to do with Western Europe?

Mr. Mackay: I am not suggesting that for a moment. If the hon. Member will bear with me for a little I will give him the facts later. What I am now suggesting is that timber is an element in a house


Europe used to get two million standards of timber from Russia, and another two million standards of timber from Finland alone; and Russia and Finland between them provided 40 per cent. of Europe's timber requirements. In the years since the war, Russia has provided a very small proportion, and is now an importer in this year. I am not saying that is a wrong position for them to take up. I am only saying it is part of the devastation of Europe as a whole, which has resulted from the war. That is the argument.
Before coming to that argument let me just put the whole position with regard to what the Government have done in the last three years, because it seems to be still necessary that this point should be made to hon. Members opposite. We have had a comparison with the period after the 1914–18 war, and I shall not make that point. That position is quite clear. We have also had a comparison with America, and there again this country comes out well. The most interesting comparison which is available is that of the United Nations' committee in Europe which recently published a timber report. They have taken the figures for the 16 countries of Europe—not all; they could not get all; they have taken 16—which show the enormous devastation that has taken place. It was quite an eye-opener to me to know that France had over one million houses destroyed; it was quite an eye-opener to me to think that in the percentage of pre-war houses destroyed we are seventh on the list of those European countries. One would have thought we were much higher than that.
I have not the time now to give the Committee the whole of the figures, which I should very much like to do. One figure I will give, however, because it is terribly important. Between the end of the war—May, 1945—and the end of December, 1947, the whole of the new building units which we put up or made available for people to live in in the 17 countries of Western Europe, including one other country, Czechoslovakia, totalled 750,000: 750,000 houses for a population of 220 million—582,000 houses being built in this country. I find it difficult to understand how hon. Members opposite can, from the point of view of responsibility, go on thinking that the housing programme of this Government

has been inadequate when it is compared with any of the 16 countries of Western Europe which are in a comparable position, and when in the same period of time we have built 20, 30, even 40 times more than anything they have built or made available. I ask hon. Members opposite to look at that position. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities said, in opening his case, that we were now going to plan for the building of four million houses over a period of years. He is planning for something quite fantastic if, over a period of five years—

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No.

Mr. Mackay: Or something like 10, years—

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is a period of 20 years. I gave a comparison of the period during which the last four million houses were built with the period during which the next four million houses are to be built.

Mr. Mackay: I am sorry if I misunderstood. I did try to listen carefully to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I did not get the point as clearly as that. If it is to be four million houses in a period of 20 years, that is 200,000 houses a year, which is the rate of building in this country at the present time.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No.

Mr. Bevan: Yes.

Mr. Mackay: Oh, yes: 200,000 houses a year. The right hon. and gallant Member cannot get away from that. The housing figures show quite clearly that, on the average, the building of new permanent houses in the last 12 months has been at the rate of 200,000 houses a year.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member's time is short and I do not wish to take it up, but I must point out that, with the wastage of houses, 200,000 a year is only just keeping pace and not adding anything to the expanding needs of the country.

Mr. Mackay: With great respect, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is quibbling.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No

Mr. Mackay: Oh, yes; he is quibbling away from the point of view I put to


him. I put the direct question: over what period are the four million to be built? He replied, "20 years." If my arithmetic serves me aright, four million houses in 20 years is at the rate of 200,000 a year. That is what he said we were going to have in new building over that period. If he says the figure is higher, then he gives me the point I want to make. I want to know what the Opposition think this country should have and would have if the Opposition were in power. What number of houses would they contemplate building? I suggest to him that it would not be very easy for more than about 200,000 houses to be built in this country over the next five years.

Major Bruce: Per year.

Mr. Mackay: Yes, per year. And the sooner people face up to that, the better it will be. Again, this United Nations' report gives the very interesting figure of the sort of programme Europe needs: two million houses a year; that is what it needs; that is without wastage, and is for replacement. If Europe is to have that number we should be building about 400,000 houses a year. Just let us look  what that means in materials at the present time. It means that timber will have to go up 231 per cent.; our steel production will have to go up—this is Western Europe—350 per cent.; and the production of steel in Western Europe affects housing in this country, because it affects the steel exports and imports of this country; cement would have to go up 277 per cent.; bricks would have to go up 244 per cent., and we are not yet back to our pre-war production of bricks; glass, an important factor, would have to go up 344 per cent. I have the figures in millions of tons, but I give the percentages to save time.
The broad general point I want to make is that the housing requirements of Europe are so enormous that we cannot possibly compare the building of the number of houses and new units available in the last 2½ years in this country with anything done in Western Europe, for it is completely out of proportion. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) said that the key to the whole problem was manpower. Not at all. Softwoods and

timber importation to this country is the key—not manpower.

Mr. Marples: I said the key to the whole of our building efficiency was manpower—that manpower and the building programme must go ahead together.

Mr. Mackay: I was sitting here during the whole of the hon. Member's speech and took down the words as he said them; if he looks at HANSARD tomorrow he will see that he made that statement, which probably he has now forgotten. I quite agree that it is for his own benefit that he should have forgotten his statements, because most of them were not worth making.
The right hon. and gallant Member tot the Scottish Universities made a comparison with the' timber imported into this country in the prewar years. Two and a half million standards of timber in a year build, say, approximately 350,000 houses. Today we can get only 900,000 standards of timber for this year, next year, and probably for the year after—again looking at the whole European position. I wish I had time to give the Committee all the figures that appeared in a report which the "Economist" used, showing the change in the importation of timber in Europe. The fact remains that Europe, instead of having four million standards of timber, as in 1938, has not yet more than two million standards; and there is no suggestion that it will be more than two million for the next two or three years.
All these problems affect us, because it is important that timber should be brought into this country. In the days before the war—in the days thrown at us this afternoon—25 per cent. of the timber that came into this country went into building; the rest went into other things. Today about one-third of our timber imports go into building. We cannot expect to use more than one-third of our timber imports for building, because we have to have packing cases for exports and other things of that kind. In addition, there is the whole question of factory building. Therefore, we can expect to have 300,000 standards of timber a year available for building, and that is all, for the next two or three years. That is a factor which will limit the number of houses we can build. The rate of building in this country is 210,000 or 220,000 houses to that quantity of timber. In doing that we are getting a


fairer share of the fundamental raw material as far as we are concerned, namely, timber, than any other country in Europe.
I should like to develop this point much further, but I know that there are many others who want to speak. All I would say, in conclusion, to Members opposite is that if they want to make any impression on the electorate in the next few years, they have to try to realise what are the facts, and the facts of this problem are that we depend on the importation of timber for the number of houses we can build, and that we cannot import more than a certain quantity of timber because it is not available in Western Europe, and because of the exchange and other problems we have not got the chance to get it from dollar countries. When one looks at the trading position in regard to timber in Europe, the outlook is not at all bright. What is left to us to do—and this is the problem of the future—is determined by the problem of softwoods. We have to look at Europe as a whole, and at E.R.P. and the material allocated to us under that programme, and translate that into housing material, realising that not only has this country done better than any country in Europe in its building programme, but that the plans which have been laid are plans that have had to be based upon what raw materials are available to us.

8.13 p.m.

Commander Noble: I do not want to keep the Committee long, but there is one point to which I wish to refer. It principally concerns the Ministry of Works, but because it involves a potential source of housing accommodation, is, of course, of great interest to the Minister of Health. It is, the need for derequisitioning the housing accommodation at present held by Government Departments as offices and for other purposes. The hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) accused us on this side of the Committee of not considering the limitations and the facts of the case, but these buildings are here in this country and are not being used for the right purposes. As the Minister knows, I have always taken an interest, as a London Member, in this particular subject, and I first raised the matter on the Adjournment in February, 1946, when the Minister of Works, now the Minister

of Education, told the House that he was concentrating his Ministry on the de-requisitioning of small houses and what he called "inexpensive flats." Since then a great deal has been done in the way of derequisitioning, but I think that perhaps a little more might now be done because I feel there is a danger, in view of the big drop that has taken place, of getting to the point when no more accommodation will be released without some pressure.
I will take flats as an example, as I do not want to quote too many figures. In February, 1946, the Government held in the United Kingdom for other purposes than housing 4,210 flats, in June, 1947, the figure had dropped to 1,546, and in March, 1948, to 1,340. I asked the Minister of Works, in a Question this week, to give the figures for June this year, but he told me that they were not yet available. In view of the small drop since last year, I doubt whether the figures of this year will show a very large decrease. Of the 1,546 flats in June, 1947, 1,431 were in London, and in London also there are 367 small houses held by the Government, which are very important, and 829 large houses. The Minister can see straight away what accommodation would be available to him for housing purposes if he could persuade his right hon. Friends to evacuate these premises, and that is what I am asking him to do. I ask him to make quite certain that his right hon. Friends can assure him that the accommodation which they have is absolutely necessary, and also that it is being properly used.
As I said just now, I do not know the current figures, but the small drop in last year's figures does not lead me to believe that the figures will be much lower. I think the moment has arrived when, unless the Minister puts some pressure on his right hon. Friends, he will not get any more accommodation released. The Minister should also find out whether permanent Ministry buildings are really being used to capacity. Some Ministries have taken upon themselves new duties and we might expect them to expand a little—for example, the Ministries of Food, Education, National Insurance, Health and, indeed, the Ministry of Works—but the two largest holders of requisitioned property in my constituency are the War Office and the Air Ministry, and I do not


really see why they should have to expand into private houses.
The Minister should also find out whether a sufficient number of people are employed in each case in these requisitioned properties. From what I have seen I do not think that is the case. A little overcrowding in some offices would allow accommodation to be made available for housing purposes, which is very much better than the terrible overcrowding, which we all hear about, of families in houses. I ask the Minister to make certain that the bigger houses, which are probably less suited for people to live in, should be used by the Government wherever possible. There is no need for me, like the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) to invite the Minister of Health to come to my constituency because he lives in it, and I ask him when taking his Sunday evening walk around Chelsea, when he is not speaking at Manchester, to look at one or two places to which I would draw his attention.
First, he should look at Sloane Court where II houses are being used to accommodate A.T.S. personnel. The Secretary of State for War told me last November that these II houses each accommodated from 10 to 27 people which I do not think is very many. I should like the Minister of Health to ask his right hon. Friend why these people cannot be accommodated in huts, for as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) has said more use could be made of hutments. The Secretary of State for War should also assure him that all barrack accommodation in London is being fully used, which again I do not think is the case. Why should not a wing of one of these big barracks be used for these A.T.S.?
When the Minister continues his walk I should like him to look at Sloane Gardens, Draycott Place and the Hans Crescent Hotel: he should also visit Lowndes Square, where some 28 flats are held by the Ministry of Works, and the Fulham Road Institute occupied by Gibraltar refugees. The Minister should not be misled by seeing the front doors of a number of houses locked up and only one house apparently being used by Ministry officials because these buildings are very often a rabbit warren, including about eight or nine houses on either side

of the house with, say, "Ministry of Works" on the door. Finally, last year nearly 1,500 flats were held by the Government, which means that we have here 1,500 homes for the taking. I ask the Minister to consider the problem in the country as a whole, and also to look at the position in Chelsea.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Gibson: I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) will forgive me if I do not take up any of his remarks because in my constituency requisitioning, or de-requisitioning, is not so much a problem as the rebuilding of houses which were completely demolished by bombs. Almost one-third of the houses in my constituency were knocked down and we are, therefore, much more interested in the number of houses which can be built than in some of these other finer problems.
I listened with particular attention to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) because on one occasion I got into serious trouble for saying that the building industry was the most unethical industry I had ever heard of. What the hon. Gentleman said tonight has fully proved what I said then, because he suggested that it was quite impossible to control the way in which contractors did their job. Most of the simple people who come from my part of London believe that if they make a contract to do a job at a certain price, they must carry it out in accordance with the specifications. Apparently the hon. Member, who, I admit, has some knowledge of this aspect of the building industry, thinks it is quite ethical to do the customer down as much as possible. The hon. Member talked about technical people in the industry, architects, surveyors, and the like, who are looking for jobs. I myself know of several local authorities who would be gad to be put in touch with them, because they have been looking for such men for many months.
The hon. Member also spoke of apprentices. Up to the time I became a Member of the House I was a member of the Joint Apprenticeship Committee in London. Our trouble was not that we could not get boys to go to technical schools, or sign on as apprentices, but that no employers would take them. The building industry has a bad habit of not being prepared to stand the cost of teach-


ing its own boys its own trade. I would remind the Committee that between the wars very few boys were taught to become craftsmen in the industry, not because there were no boys wishing to learn but because no employers would take the trouble to teach them through the apprenticeship scheme. Through apprenticeship committees we now have an improved situation. Although our technical schools in London are chock full of boys learning their jobs in the building trade, and all local authorities in the London area are taking on large numbers of them, up to the maximum permitted by the trade agreement, it is still difficult to get many employers to recognise their responsibility for the future standard of craftsmanship in the industry, and take on a proper number of boys as apprentices for training purposes. This was a very convenient camouflage; it avoided the necessity of dealing with the facts of the housing situation.
We have listened to Members of the Opposition talking about everything except what has been done by housing authorities and the Government during the past few years. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) was quite right when he said that, without being in the least complacent, what had been done in housing in this country was better than had been done by any other country in the world, including America. It is wrong that Members opposite, in order to score cheap political debating points, should make the kind of dismal speeches we have heard today. Fortunately, however, our people can read and learn the facts for themselves, and I have no fear of what the result will be when the facts are put before them.
To have built more than 430,000 houses since the end of the war, in face of great shortages of labour and materials, is a fine achievement; but it is no excuse for not pushing on with the job as fast as we can. Many tens of thousands of people are living in badly overcrowded homes. As I know to my cost, there are tens of thousands of recently-married people who are compelled to live with their "in-laws" because of the housing shortage. I sometimes think that that is the most potent cause of family troubles in these days. Also, there are many houses which are ripe for demolishing. There is certainly a

lot of hard work to be done in providing sufficient houses and sufficient accommodation for our people, but we can do it without throwing cold water on, or misrepresenting, what has been done already in difficult circumstances.
I was glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that it was proposed to get away from the idea of building the same kind of cottages all over the country, that it was proposed in future that building should be related to the size of the family. We need small cottages for small families, and especially for old people. We want them to be built within the general community, and not as separate entities. We need to provide accommodation for the tens of thousands of single men and women for whom no provision is at present made in any of our schemes. I hope that when future subsidies are considered some encouragement will be given to local authorities to provide specially-designed and built accommodation for single people who are compelled to live away from their families, or who have no family. We also need a small proportion of large houses for large families. What matters most of all, however, is the need to increase output and reduce costs. We shall not get increased output unless there is a greater sense of co-operation between all sections of the industry.
I sometimes think that the contracting side of the industry is not trying to be helpful. Recently it agreed to a payment by-results scheme, but in many parts of the country no effort is being made to apply that scheme, although, where it has been applied, it is proving a great success. I hope the Minister will use his influence to encourage contractors who are engaged on municipal housing to introduce schemes of payment by results. This would encourage output, would reduce costs and also give employees more money to take home at the end of the week.
I am encouraged to say that by the experience of my own local authority. From an intermediate check over the last five months, I find that we have already secured an increase of 19 per cent. per man in output, and, at the same time, have enabled the operative to earn 14 to 15 per cent. more wages and have reduced the overall cost per house. If a bonus scheme, which is only just beginning to get into its stride, can do that in London it ought


to be an encouragement to other local authorities to do likewise and, in so doing, to bring down the cost of building and considerably increase output. All that can be lost, and is indeed being partly lost already because the cost of materials still remains high.
My information is that during the past year prices have gone up by another 3 per cent. It would be tragic, if, in spite of hard work by operatives and directors in getting an increased output and reduced labour costs, that saving were swallowed up by the excessive price of materials. I hope the Minister will pay very close attention to the recommendations of the Simon Report on the distribution of building materials and components. There is not time this evening to quote from that report, but it makes it clear that the price of building materials is, in fact, controlled by a very closely organised combine of a kind, whereby prices have been kept up to a very much higher level than they ought to be. There is no free competition in the supply of building materials, and steps should be taken as soon as possible in order that the price of building materials shall be reduced in company with the drop in labour costs, thus effecting a very considerable saving in the cost of our housing schemes.
The other factor which I have not time to develop is the cost of land. Frankly, I get very angry when I find the enormous cost that local authorities have to pay for land for essential housing purposes. In London the average price per acre is over £10,000. In many cases we are compelled to pay £35,000 and £40,000 per acre. That seems to me almost inevitably to mean that either rents will be at a level which no working class family can afford or will place an excessive supplementary charge on local rates. This matter could be dealt with if there were time to develop it, but quite briefly I would say that I would place a stinging tax on land values, thus forcing the land on to the market, for by so doing the price would be reduced considerably, in addition to securing a greater income for the State. Something will have to be done if the larger local authorities are not going to be put into additional difficulties over sites.
The last point I want to make is that sufficient has been done in the housing line to enable us to look forward to the

next stage in our work. I hope that during the coming year the Minister will encourage local authorities to begin to get ready for the resumption of the slum clearance drives of before the war. It will take the most efficient local authorities—and I have some connection with one of them—something like 12 months to prepare for it. I am anxious that we should get on with the job. In London there are 20,000 to 30,000 slum houses already scheduled as being unfit for human habitation, and I am quite sure that new surveys would show the number to be larger than that. I hope, therefore, that at the earliest possible moment, and certainly before the end of this year, the Minister will feel he can free the hands of housing authorities to begin to make preparations for dealing with slum clearance.
Finally, I should like to join with my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) in congratulating the Minister on the success of his policy. It has produced houses for the people who most needed them. It has produced them in larger numbers than some of us thought possible when it started. There are now nearly 500,000 families in this country living in new homes which did not exist when the war ended. They are living happier and more comfortable lives, and I believe that the success secured in building up this number of new homes has had a tremendous effect in preventing any real social trouble in this country since the end of the war.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson) referred to the subject of slum clearance. I am cordially in sympathy with him in regard to that. As he well knows, the operations to which he referred are governed by the Housing Act of 1936, passed in a time of Conservative administration. On the taxation of land values, I think that when the hon. Member has made a closer study of the provisions of Part VII of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, he will find that there is no need for his proposal.
I must part company with him when he congratulates the Minister of Health. Any feeling that one might have of complacency in regard to the housing position must be destroyed—at least it is in my case—by the contents of my constituency


postbag. One of the hardest things in my life as a Member is to get heartrending letters day by day from constituents who are unable to be housed properly, or indeed housed at all, to know that the local authorities are doing all that they can, and to realise the helplessness of my own position. Let me take another piece of everyday evidence. Nobody in my profession, whether habitually practising in the county courts or not, can fail to be aware of the enormous amount of time that county courts now devote to what are known as "balance-of-hardship" cases in claims for possession of a house.
The fact that emerges from them is that in almost every one of these cases the judge knows that whatever decision he comes to must impose great hardship on both parties. There is nothing that can be done in those cases by judicial decision, but only by the provision of more housing accommodation. We have heard a great deal about the place of housing in the national economy. For myself, I believe, and have always believed, that good housing conditions are indispensable both to industrial productivity and, to good citizenship generally. I believe also that good housing conditions will pay an enduring dividend to the community in both those ways.
Now I come to an argument used by the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to costs. These loomed very large in his speech and in the Debate. The argument of the Parliamentary Secretary amounted to what is known in law as a plea of confession and avoidance. He admitted that housing costs had increased but he said that this does not matter very much because everything else is increasing as well. That seems to be a most dangerous argument to put before the people of this country at a time when there is a great necessity for a disinflationary policy. I further suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary's figures were most unhelpful. From the tender prices which he put before the Committee it appears that they are at the rate of about £1,200 per local authority house. To that figure must be added the appropriate sum for the increase of the final account over the tender price, for the cost of site and services, and for professional charges. It is clear that these houses must be costing about £1,600 apiece now. Why that is not admitted by the Government is a little difficult to discover.
It was verging on dishonesty on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary to put those figures before the Committee without explaining how much has to be added to an approved tender price. It is not only a matter of variations and extras under the contract but, as some hon. Members well know, because of the fact that the tender for every contract includes what are known as provisional sums and prime cost items. These are simply notional figures and the figure prevailing at the market rates is then inserted in the final settlement of the account. It is not right to put these tender prices before the Committee without making very clear the amount by which they may be exceeded, and normally are exceeded.
Time is becoming short. I suffer as a politician from the disqualification that I do not like repeating myself or indeed contradicting myself. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health smiles. No small part of his political success is, of course, due to the fact that he is free from both of those inhibitions. However, I will just say that I was in this Parliament something of a pioneer in the matter of drawing attention to high building costs. I made a detailed analysis of the position in the Second Reading Debate on what is now the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, on 6th March, 1946. On that occasion I made it clear that the rental target then put before the House would not be achieved, at any rate without a rise in the rate contribution or the Exchequer subsidy.
As I see it, the Government are in this dilemma. If rents are raised, it makes the new houses unattractive, especially in the rural districts; if, on the other hand, the rate contribution is raised, it acts as a social injustice because people living in old houses have their rates put up in order to finance the occupancy of new houses by their more fortunate fellow citizens. Either of those things is bad, and one or other of them necessarily follows from high building costs.
Last year, I put before the House and to the Minister certain practical steps which in my view would help the house building programme and policy. Some of those matters, I am pleased to say, have been the subject of improvement since that time. Particularly I laid emphasis on the scheme contained in Circular


92/1946, and in that progress has been made. Progress has also been made in the relaxation of certain controls in regard to building materials, but very little progress has been made in one of the other points I made which has been referred to this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples)—the over-rigidity in specification of materials. I will not deal with that because he most adequately dealt with that part of the problem.
The last point I made was that private enterprise building could make a better contribution, if it were so allowed, to the housing programme of the country. The new policy contained in Circular 108/1948, which is the only new thing in the Minister's policy so far as I can see, is really of very little value in so far as its effect goes in the expanding of the housing production of the nation or in reducing building costs. It is so fenced about with qualifications and limitations that I think it will be seen to be a sham concession, as indeed it may perhaps be intended to be. I have here a list of the points to which I wished to draw attention in regard to that, but conscious as I am that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) will be anxious in a moment or two to take the Floor, I will refer only to one, and that is the one which I think is the most important. Paragraph 7 of the circular says that each licence should relate to not more than one structurally separate building, e.g., a single house or pair of semi-detached houses.
To impose these limitations makes it impossible for private enterprise building to deploy the technique which alone, from the point of view of rapidity and quality of construction and reduction of costs, makes it worth while bringing private enterprise building into the programme at all. Piecemeal licensing will not put, and cannot put, private enterprise productive capacity into gear; it prevents estate development, which is the form of housing construction for which private enterprise is particularly suited; and it prevents, so far as one can see, the building of a small terrace of houses or, indeed, even of four or six flats. As such, the concession is valueless. It would be equally reasonable to expect Messrs.

Ford's to reproduce their quality of mass production if only one model were allowed to come off the assembly lines per day.
I do not know what motive the Minister had in making the apparent concession in this circular, but I am quite convinced that the concession as it stands will be of no practical value either in improving the rapidity or the quality of housing construction or in regard to this most vital question of lowering costs. It may be that it will serve the Minister's purpose because, of course, it will enable him to say—and I will be prophetic and say that in due course he will say it—that private enterprise has been given its chance in this circular and that it has failed. It may be for that reason that this concession has been given in this form and at this time.
I close by saying that in my view high costs and slow production are still with us in the housing programme, and there are no readily identifiable signs of hope that they will not continue to be with us in the future. So long as they remain with us, this country will not get full value in its housing programme out of the materials and manpower which are deployed in the task.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Henry Nicholls: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). He always makes quite a good speech and I am sure, if he only had a case, he would be devastating. So far, I have yet to hear a decent case from the Opposition, and on this subject I do not think they can make a case. I often wonder when they are attacking this Government, especially on such a subject as housing, if they see on these Benches, which they once occupied, any ghosts of their past colleagues and think of their attitude on housing. It must be terribly disconcerting for them if they do. It is an interesting point which I have no time to follow, and I would like first to congratulate the Minister on the national programme which has brought credit on the Government and on our Party, and despite anything that can be said by the Opposition, I am sure they could not even have approached anywhere near it in performance. They would not have had the good-will of the people in the industry.
What I am concerned about is not to ask the Minister to increase the total housing, because I do not think he can


do that—so far as the nation is concerned, I think we are getting all we can—but to ask him to make special concessions to blitzed areas. Time and again he has heard that plea, and on each occasion so far he has refused to accept it. He says housing is housing, whether it is caused by blitz or by bad conditions, which are a legacy of the past. I plead with him to give priorities to the blitzed areas, which have a problem no other areas possess.
Let me indicate to him what our position is in West Ham. We have on our waiting list 20,000—not 20,000 people but 20,000 families. In case people say that our lists may be inflated or exaggerated let me put the problem in another way. We had 14,000 houses totally destroyed out of a total of 50,000. I know that hon. Members who represent Hull and other places consider their towns and cities were badly blitzed but if we replaced those 14,000 houses we still would not have given our people anything like decent accommodation.
What are our prospects? So far, with all the good will in the world, we have managed to release roughly 90 houses a month at our best period, or 1,000 a year. It would take us 14 years at this rate to replace those lost during the blitz. The sum total would not be too bad if many other houses did not fall down during those 14 years. Not only were those 14,000 houses destroyed, but many others were rotten to their foundations, were badly knocked about or had been badly neglected for many years by their landlords before the war. The prospects are very poor indeed. In many cases they cannot be made into decent, habitable accommodation. If we take merely the re-housing of our people in Nissen huts, 12 months' supply of houses would not be sufficient for them. Anyone who lives in a Nissen hut has the sympathy of hon. Members in any part of the Committee. These huts were never constructed for use as houses; they could never replace decent accommodation; not even right hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose party were responsible for Nissen huts, would agree that the price we pay is anything like their worth.
The Minister can persuade his colleagues and the rest of the country to give us special consideration. It is a moral responsibility not only of the Government, but of the country, to help the blitzed areas

to rehabilitate themselves at the earliest opportunity. Present conditions are totally unreasonable. Not even Pontius Pilate would ask local authorities to clear up a battlefield out of the rates—which is what we have been asked to do. We have been very patient and it is now time that we had the practical sympathy not only of Parliament, but of the country as a whole, and I believe we could get it.
The cost factor has been mentioned several times, and the Minister is right in trying to keep costs down. It is unreasonable that people who will be living in 60 years' time should be paying rates to their local authority—if rates are paid in 60 years' time—to cover the cost of houses being built today. I wish we could face the problem bluntly and squarely and do what I consider is the right thing—abolish interest on loans for houses. There is surely no justification whatever for paying 3 per cent. interest for 60 years on houses which today are a necessity. I know that orthodox financiers will stand in their places and the dead ones will probably turn in their graves if such a policy is enunciated from our Front Bench, yet I believe it is the only sane way to deal with the problem. There is no other way of keeping down costs.
If the right hon. Gentleman can release houses a little earlier in the blitzed areas—that is to say, if, when proposals are put up by local authorities they are allowed to go out to tender earlier—it will enable local authorities to get the best possible price without any delay. In one case our scheme was delayed three months because the Ministry of Health were not satisfied with the price. They may be justified in asking us to go out for tender again but, because the houses were not released sufficiently early, we were not able to get in the new tenders in time. That is a matter I should ask the Minister to look into.
It will be a good many years before our people in overcrowded industrial areas are properly housed. We may as well face that fact. Meanwhile, in many small houses which were never intended to house more than one family, two families will be living. I cannot estimate the number of people who, as a result of such conditions, will become neurotic. There must be thousands of them. They have to share a gas stove or sanitary conveniences, or the sink, or front door, and


deal with such problems as to whose turn it is to clean the passage. In many cases there are no proper locks on the doors. In many cases the people do not know their rights as sub-tenants. If this problem is not dealt with there will be many neurotics. I ask the Minister to issue a statement clearly setting out the rights of people sharing houses in such conditions. If he could issue such a statement it would be of great help.

8.56 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I suggest that so far the Debate has been on a very high level and I shin endeavour to maintain that level during my speech. I also think that the general sense of the Committee is that housing remains one of our greatest social problems. The position is very serious indeed. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) said, that many young people who have been married a considerable number of years and have families have no homes of their own and are forced to live with parents, relatives, friends or strangers, in most difficult conditions. To those conditions the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. H. Nicholls) referred very accurately. These young people have little hope and no knowledge of when they can get a home of their own and settle down to normal married life. What the effect of that will be the future alone can reveal, but in terms of unhappiness, discontent and frustration, it may be serious.
It is unfortunate that for 18 months the right hon. Gentleman has been using the figure of 750,000 new dwellings in such a way as to give the impression that that number would provide a separate house for every family. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he did not accept that, but it is only recently that the Minister stated that he did not accept it, for not until as recently as 8th April did he say that it was not fully reliable. In the Return for 31st May, that figure is repeated. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has explained fully to the Committee how the figure was arrived at. It was presented in March, 1945, and has no connection whatever with the position as it exists today, particularly in view of

the high marriage rate over the last three or four years. From such investigations as I have been able to make, I have been forced to the conclusion that even a million new houses would probably be insufficient to give a separate house to every family, which, I gather, is the first objective of the Government. Even when that is accomplished, we are only starting to deal with the housing problem. When each family is given a separate house we shall still be further back than we were in the year 1939. In that year the number of houses was approximately equal to the number of separate families and at least some progress had been made in the replacement of obsolescent houses.
My right hon. and gallant Friend dealt with this matter of replacement on the assumption that the life of a house was 60 years, and pointed out that that meant an annual replacement programme of some 200,000 houses. When we were building at an average rate of 330,000 houses a year, as we were in the five years before the war, such a replacement programme was possible, but for nine years now no replacements have been possible. So, it seems to me that we are faced with a situation in which we have 1¾ million houses in occupation today which, but for the war, would have been demolished and replaced. Those are the sober facts of the housing situation. We require another 300,000 houses before we can provide a separate house for each family and in respect of replacements we are 1¾ million worse off than we were in 1939.
I do not know that many people would believe that to be the situation after listening to certain of the speeches and utterances which have been made today, but it is in the light of those facts that we have to look at the situation. I will give the right hon. Gentleman the credit for every stage of the housing programme since 1st April, 1945. He has converted 92,000 and repaired 138,000 existing houses, provided 122,000 temporary houses and requisitioned 48,000 premises of various kinds. He has also built 264,000 permanent houses. In my opinion it is in respect of that latter figure for permanent houses that the right hon. Gentleman falls to be judged. In that connection, I can remember the jeers of hon. Members opposite and the gibe of the Minister himself when the Coalition Government's target of 220,000 houses in the first two


years was announced. The actual performance of the present Government in that period was 88,731 houses for the United Kingdom. I can also remember the promises which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite made at the time of the General Election. It seems to me that a total in three years for the whole of the United Kingdom of 289,000 permanent houses, for 264,000 of which the Minister is responsible, is not a great deal to boast about.
Of course, hon. Gentlemen opposite have been saying that it is much better than the total during the three years after the first war. But would one compare the experience, knowledge and accomplishments of hon. Gentlemen and their material resources of 28 years ago with what they are today? If I were to do that, I think that hon. Gentlemen would say that I was being unfair and I was also being unrealistic. So it is unfair and unrealistic to compare the industry of 1920 with the industry of 1948. One has no relevance to the other. I am reminded that before the last war broke out, one million people were employed in the building industry. In 1946 there were 750,000 employed, in 1947 there were 972,000 and in 1948 1,088,000, so that in the last two years the Government have had at their disposal a building force equal to that of pre-war days. Therefore, I ask why it is that in these last two years the average number of permanent houses completed has amounted to only 139,000 against 330,000 houses for England and Wales before the war.
Hon. Gentlemen may object to my taking into account the year to May, 1947, even though there were one million men at the disposal of the Government, because in that year only 77,000 houses were completed whereas in this last year 200,000 have been completed. I would point out that that latter figure has been made possible only as a result of the work done in the previous year. Even taking the figure of 200,000, we are still 130,000 short of the pre-war average, and again I ask why? If the answer is, as I rather anticipate it will be, that there is a shortage of materials, then the labour force which has been employed has been too large and the Minister has been guilty of a misuse of manpower at a time when the whole economy of this country was being strangled for a lack of manpower.
As regards materials, we know one or two things. We know, as the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) said, that there is no shortage of bricks, but, as a matter of fact, we knew that long ago from the Minister himself. He said on 25th May, as reported in the "Birmingham Post"—and it is rather a curious statement to make and one to which I would draw the attention of the Committee:
There never was a shortage of bricks. The explanation is that we raised a howl about bricks to guard against any possible shortage. That is the way in a democracy. You scream before you are hurt if you are wise.
I suppose that really is a strict definition of what Socialists call a planned economy. At a time when there was no shortage, according to the right hon. Gentleman, he screamed, and in consequence of his scream brickfields were opened up, men were diverted, and then there followed a glut of bricks and brickfields were closed down again. In the meantime, labour had been removed from essential work. To that extent, at least, the right hon. Gentleman was guilty of sabotaging the economy of his own country. That I believe to be a typical example of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman upsets the rhythm not only of the economy of the nation but also of the building industry.
After that example, I am sure we all wonder whether the shortages of which the Minister complains are merely the outcome of his desire to scream—and the right hon. Gentleman has been doing that a great deal lately. Be that as it may, shortage of timber is always referred to as the chief limiting factor in the production of houses, but that shortage is certainly not holding up the production and the completion of houses at the present moment. We know that from the White Paper on capital investment. We know it from the answer which the Parliamentary Secretary gave in the House on 9th February, 1948, when he said that timber was available to enable all the houses under contract to be completed, and that arrangements had been made to issue licences to meet the requirements of the programme. At the end of January—and I presume the hon. Gentleman got his figures about that time—there were still 350,000 houses under construction or under contract, and


so we have got plenty to get on with, before timber can possibly hold us up.
The Parliamentary Secretary attributed the cut in the programme last year to the need to get the housing programme balanced. I had always understood from my reading of the documents that the reason was a shortage of dollars which prevented us from getting timber, but I agree that if that was so, it was a complete pretence, and that the real purpose was to get completions and commencements into some relationship—in fact, to get the programme into phase, the necessity of which had been emphasised from this side of the Committee very strongly in the Debate last July, and even before that by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples).
However, I am struck by another thing. It seems to me that material shortages are used far too often by the Government. They are becoming a stock excuse to cover up their inept administration. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh. They always laugh when they do not like something that is said. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) dealt very fully with the grave position arising as a result of the phenomenal increase in the cost of building. On 9th October, 1946—as long ago as that—the Minister said, when he was speaking to a meeting of the National Joint Council of the Building Industry:
Building prices must not go any higher. They have already gone as high as the country can stand.
Since then, of course, they have gone a very great deal higher. The Parliamentary Secretary today estimated that costs were in step with the increase in prices of other materials. He certainly did not convince me. I doubt very much whether he convinced himself. I have his words. He said, "The trends of costs are keeping step with the trends of prices of other materials."

Mr. J. Edwards: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me to explain? I was at pains to show that, in fact, tender prices had not moved anything like as rapidly as prices in general.

Commander Galbraith: Well, perhaps, I mistook the hon. Gentleman. I certainly took his words down, and that was

certainly the impression he gave me as to the whole trend of his argument. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Gentlemen say "No," but half of them were not in the Chamber at the time the statement was made. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Tories were not"] But, at any rate, the whole basis on which the subsidy was calculated in the Act of 1946 has gone. Mr. Woods' paper, which has been referred to on several occasions today, makes that clear. We know that the annual charges which were covered at the time when the Act was passed, by rent, by the Exchequer, and by rate contribution, are now no longer covered, and that there is actually a deficit, in the illustration which he gave, of £11 per year.
I should like to know how that deficit is to be met. Is it to be put on the rates? Or is it to be put on the rents? Has the right hon. Gentleman thought it wise to give any advice or directions to the local authorities on that matter? If it is to go on the rents, then, in the illustration to which I have referred, it will mean an addition to the weekly rent of 5s. 9d.; that is, of course, on the assumption that the present cost of the house to which Mr. Woods was alluding is £1,330. Many of my hon. Friends—and we have evidence for it—are of the opinion that it is very much higher than that. If they are right, and it is something between £1,500 and £1,600, and if the deficit is to go on the rent, the rent will rise to something in the region of 22s. 6d. a week. That is a figure two and a quarter times above that which was used in calculate the subsidy, and it is a figure which will be a very great shock indeed to those who took the Election promises of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite at their face value. It was the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West) who said that new houses were being placed beyond the reach of many whose need for housing accommodation was greatest and for whom these houses were intended.
We know very well that at the present time the local authorities do not like placing additional burdens on the rates, and that, as a result, many of them are compromising by spreading the burden by raising the rents of all their pre-war houses, and that accordingly rents have increased from 25 per cent. to 35 per cent. I suggest to the Committee that that practice will become common throughout the whole


country. As it does, it will do one good thing: it will bring to the knowledge of the community—of those, particularly, who live in the older houses—that they are paying by way of rent or rates for the increased cost of housing which has resulted from the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. I wonder how long it will be, as one hon. Gentleman has already asked, before those who are living in the older houses, for whom nothing is being done in the way of modernisation, kick against what must appear to them to be in many cases a rather unjust imposition, particularly when they happen to be worse off than those they are subsidising. There is general agreement on the reasons for the increased cost. It is agreed that they are due to increased size and better amenities provided, to the upsetting of the rhythm of construction due to the shortage of material on the sites, to the lack of balance in labour complements and, we must admit it with regret, to the much lower output of the individual operators.
I suggest to the Committee that unless there is a large decrease in cost and a large increase in the number of houses to be completed, there may well arise a demand from those who are homeless or living in obsolete houses for a return to houses of good pre-war design, particularly in view of the statement made by that unquestioned enthusiast on housing, Lord Simon, who has stated that the pre-war houses satisfied all the requirements for a full and healthy family life. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you agree with that?"] That the pre-war houses satisfied the requirement of a full and healthy family life is the statement of Lord Simon, who, as I have said, is an undoubted enthusiast in regard to houses. If that is to be prevented, there must be every effort to increase output and reduce costs.

Mr. Percy Wells: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what his opinion is about the pre-war houses?

Commander Galbraith: My opinion is that the pre-war house is a very good house indeed. The house which was built immediately before the war, I should be very happy and glad to live in myself, and so would millions of other people.
The incentive and bonus schemes introduced recently should, I believe, be encouraged and extended, for their results

show that they give increased output and lower costs. I do not believe, however, that we shall obtain the results such as I consider to be essential unless real competitive building is introduced once more. Within the period of two years of the 1914–18 war, housing costs were reduced from £834 to £494 per house. The lessons of that war have been forgotten by His Majesty's Ministers of today. In that connection, I will quote from the report of the Departmental Committee on the high cost of building working-class dwellings in 1921. The Committee was known as the Holmes Committee. The report stated:
The competitive spirit of the building trade has largely disappeared. Work would only be undertaken under conditions whereby the builder was safeguarded against possible increases in the cost of labour, materials, and railway freights, and upon terms which insured him against all other possible contingencies There was a great clamour for housing accommodation. The public and a Press criticised the comparative lack of progress. No one seemed disposed to count the cost.
I think that those words are equally applicable to the situation which exists today. Until competitive enterprise is allowed to work, costs will mount or, at the best, remain on the existing high level. I can never understand why hon. Members opposite are so against private enterprise building. The hon. Member for Wallasey has pointed out that it is cheaper and faster, and he has not been contradicted by anyone. The houses could either be let or sold. Why it is that the hon. Member for Pontypool believes that free enterprise houses cannot go to those who need them most is something I cannot understand. In any event, what we want in this country is houses, no matter how they may be built.
The Minister has decided to license private building, but under conditions which will deprive private enterprise of those characteristics of competitive efficency wherein lies the whole advantage of private enterprise. The price is to be tied to the local authority cost, which means, of course, that the builder will only quote the same price as for local authority building. There is to be no element of competition whatsoever; the purchaser is not to have any choice, for licences are to be granted only where the person is identifiable; builders will not be permitted to build in any quantity, but will have to build one house at a time.


As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey has pointed out today, that puts these builders in a quite impossible position, if costs and prices are to be reduced.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Would the hon. and gallant Member allow me, as a private enterprise builder who a week ago signed a contract for 82 houses, to say that there are no such regulations? Though I am not passionately devoted to private enterprise, my right hon. Friend has really given every encouragement to every competitive private builder who wishes to build at reasonable prices.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman cannot see the difference between private enterprise building tied down by a local authority and private enterprise building free. I ask the hon. Gentleman what opportunity has private enterprise of securing an unbroken, planned sequence of jobs, of minimising idle time, and of enabling team work to go forward without interruption—the conditions which private enterprise must achieve if it is to produce efficiently—when it is the servant of a local authority, or is restricted by conditions laid down by the Minister of Health? The consequence of these conditions will simply be that this concession will fail to provide any standard by Which the work of local authorities can be judged, and it will be utterly valueless so far as the reduction of costs is concerned.
These things, of course, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. I do not think he really wishes private enterprise of the kind I have in mind to have any chance whatsoever. I doubt very much if he desires people to own their own houses either, because he has stated that that renders them immobile. He, of course, wants to be able to order them about. I should like to know what creates a greater degree of immobility than the existing housing shortage. If, as I claim, free private enterprise would increase the number of houses, it would also increase and not reduce the degree of mobility of the population.
The right hon. Gentleman is going to increase the repair allowance to £100 a year. I welcome that, though we must remember that for a long period it has been altogether impossible to conduct repairs of any kind, and in consequence many buildings are in a very bad state

of repair, in which circumstances it may be that the increased allowance is all too little; it allows nothing whatsoever for reconditioning, the need for which was stressed by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Scottish Universities, while my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) stressed its importance so far as the rural areas are concerned.
Conditions in the countryside must be improved, as several hon. Members have stated, if the Minister of Agriculture is to get the output for which he is looking. The rate of building there is far too low, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the need for houses in the countryside, he is taking any steps to prepare for a real housing drive in the rural areas. We are told that it is the intention of the Government to facilitate the improvement of existing houses. We have been told that now since the very first days of this Parliament. What we want to know is what the right hon. Gentleman has got in mind. Let me say this to him, that if it is merely an increase in the amount of money to be expended in any one year, it will in no way meet the situation.
Regarding the whole housing programme as objectively as I can, I cannot but feel that even the most ardent of the Government's supporters must be disappointed with the progress that has been made; certainly the Government have fallen far short of the promises and hopes that they held out at the General Election. The number of houses which have been completed in relation to the building force and to the material available has been much lower than it could have been, and costs have been allowed to rise to an unprecedented level, indeed, to levels which this country cannot afford. I say further, that in the carrying out of this programme there has been a lack of foresight, a lack of planning and a lack of drive, and that there has been muddle and interference almost beyond belief. On all these points the evidence is perfectly clear for all to see, and I am quite convinced that nothing will persuade those who are so much in need of housing, and nothing will persuade the country and Members on these benches, that the right hon. Gentleman's' policy has not been a costly and dubious experiment.

9.27 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): The Committee is unusually full at this moment. It has been comparatively empty all day. I hope that members of the Committee will not assume that the atmosphere which the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) has just generated has been characteristic of the whole Debate. On the contrary, and I think that perhaps his speech would have been a little better if he had spent all the time listening to the Debate and less time writing out his speech. The arid artificiality of the speech to which we have just listened was due, of course, to the hon. and gallant Member having written it out, and it therefore has no relationship at all to the atmosphere that has existed right throughout the discussion, which has, on the whole, been a reasonable, studied and detailed examination of the housing problem.
The hon. and gallant Member started his speech by saying that it must be admitted on all sides that the housing problem is still the foremost problem of the day. Well, we all agree with that, but the Opposition are very naughty. Why have they not had a Debate before? Really, this is shocking neglect on the part of the Opposition. It is a year since we had a Debate on housing, and we have had it now only because the Opposition have been taunted into it. This was the very last subject they wanted to discuss. They had hoped that their ration of Supply Days would run out before they were faced with the embarrassing necessity of having to discuss housing. But when they came to discuss the task of having a housing Debate they again selected a new figure. It is really an astonishing series of speakers that we have had from the Opposition on housing. And, may I suggest with all respect, not wishing to be condescending in any one little degree, but having had some experience of the House of Commons, that it would have been so much better if in 1945 they had taken one of their Members aside and said: "Now you concentrate on housing. It may be in a few years you will know something about it." By now there would have been on those Benches a person who would have been able to make a speech which had some relationship to the facts.
We have had a whole series of speakers one after another. They have walked up to that Box with some hesitation, delivered themselves and gone away. It is true that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) is the only one who has stayed the course. He has spoken twice. That is pretty good going. It is quite true that he has made all the mistakes that he made the last time he spoke on the subject, but, nevertheless, I congratulate him on his fidelity and upon the confidence that the Members of his party unfortunately repose in him.
I should like to know once more from the Opposition—I have asked it on several occasions and I am bound to add that it is in the interests of the nation as a whole that we should know it—the case we are now supposed to answer. Is it that we are building too few houses or have we built too many? I admit that my mind is confused. I try hard to follow what the Opposition wishes in the matter, and I am only too anxious to ascertain their views. For example, there is a gentleman who has attempted to organise the Conservative Party in the country, a very expensive gentleman he is, too—Lord Woolton. In September, 1946, he sent a message to Mr. Bevins, the Conservative candidate in the Edge Hill by-election, and in the course of his message he asks himself the rhetorical question, "What has happened?" Answering it he said:
Failure to build the promised houses: failure to produce a higher standard of living: failure to gather all the resources and good will of our Empire to help to feed us; failure to use the American loan to buy 'time'; failure to give encouragement to home agriculture.
In October, 1947, the same gentleman said:
I ask in these days of over full employment for the postponement of all works of a public nature and for the discouragement of all capital expenditure whether by Government or by private industry.
We are entitled to a reply when I say that we should like to know which position is the Opposition now taking up. Is it that of Lord Woolton, that we ought to build fewer houses, or the rhetoric of the speech to which we have just listened that we ought to build more? This is a serious matter, because we know that in the country as a whole the Tories have been running two horses at once. Their tame economists are talking about the


huge load which is put on the resources of the country through carrying a housing programme which the country cannot bear. It appears in the "Economist" almost every week. At the same time, when they come to make speeches to the country, they taunt the Government with the fact that there are still people who have no homes of their own. Only Dr. Goebbels could equal it. They say directly opposite things at one and the same time.
The Opposition are going into the Lobby tonight on this Vote. We are entitled to know what their vote represents. Are they censuring the Government for building too many houses—with Lord Woolton—or because we are building too few—with the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken? Really, the Opposition ought to answer, you know. I know that it is an embarrassing question to ask. I do not ask it for the purpose of embarrassing the Opposition at all. After all, one of the purposes of democratic discussion is that the alternatives should be exposed so that the country should know what is available for them and when they choose should know what they have chosen. They will not know what they have chosen, if they ever do choose the Conservative Party. However, I will leave that point, because it is too painful to the Opposition to continue it any further.
In opening the Debate, the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities made a number of statements that I am again anxious to have clarified. We would like to know exactly where we are in these matters. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman stated that it was now the policy of the Opposition—see how they have moved—to build half the houses on what he called private account and half for renting. I would like to be clear. Is that now the policy of the Opposition? Is it that they want half the houses for renting? Is this the considered policy of the Opposition, or is it a mere animadversion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? He stated that he wanted half for renting and half for owning.
I would again like to know; when did the Conservative Party reach that decision? Indeed, I would like to know

from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he did consult his hon. and gallant Friend who has just replied for the Opposition, when he was about to make his speech. We have just heard fall from the lips of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok that it does not matter how the houses are built. Is that not a fact? Does the hon. and gallant Member repudiate the 50 per cent. of his right hon. and gallant Friend beside him? The fact is that they wobble about all over the place. They just want—this is painful for me—to make the speech which is most demagogic at the time they make it. Those two Members obviously cannot agree between themselves and they both disagree with Lord Woolton.
Lord Woolton has also made a pronouncement on this subject. He has gone a distance since Blackpool. In Blackpool, the Conservative Party did not care two pence who owned the houses so long as they were built. Everybody in Great Britain knows very well that if we had let loose the building industry on the housing shortage in Great Britain without any controls, restrictions or directions, hardly any houses to rent would have been built at all. The Conservative Party for three years has carried on the most immoral propaganda against controls knowing very well—or they ought to have known—that if their policies had been carried out the ex-Service men to whom they had pledged their support would have been walking homeless around the streets of Great Britain. They said, "Away with controls." That is what they said at Blackpool. That is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said today. That is what he said when he spoke before, but, of course, his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities is more cautious—although they had both written out their speeches.
However, Lord Woolton, who is in charge of the Election and who, therefore, will be judged to the extent to which he can seduce the voter into the Conservative camp, said the other day that in his opinion private enterprise ought to be allowed to have one in four. See how we are educating them. Lord Woolton says three houses to rent for every one house to sell. Is that the policy of the Conservative Party? I would like to know. After all, the local authorities of the country want to have guidance. Have


we brought the Conservative Party along so far that they now believe that for every three houses to rent there should be one to sell? Because ours is one for five. So by next year we should have brought them to where we stand—on the eve of the General Election, of course! By the time 1950 is reached, we shall have brought them away so far from Blackpool that they will not be able to distinguish their own housing programme from ours. They are slowly being educated, but it is a tragic spectacle for a party which have been in office for so many years that on this, which on their own statement is the most important political problem of the day, they have not yet made up their minds about their policy. The people of Great Britain, if there was a General Election next week, do not know today what would be the housing policy of the Conservative Party of Great Britain. A more disgraceful exhibition of political bankruptcy has never been seen in this country.
Of course, what is now happening is a grievous disappointment to the Tory Party. They can see the houses going up all over the country. It is no longer possible to pretend that they are not there; it is no longer possible to deny the fructification of the housing plans; and they are disappointed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), a former Minister of Agriculture, at Crewe on 12th April last year predicted—we know very well how much insight he has—that "the total number of houses completed this year would be the lowest in our peacetime history" and said that "the stocks of timber were now so low that the distribution of houses was sure to break down in the next few months."
Well, of course, in the consummation we know what has happened. The facts are that we are now building houses, permanent new houses, at the rate of over 20,000 a month—at the rate of 240,000 houses a year—and the vast majority of them to let. And we know the consequence of the policy which we have followed consistently right throughout ever since 1945—and it has not been easy! We have carried it out against a barrage of misrepresentation from the party opposite and from their Press supporters who have not scrupled to use any means in order to try to disintegrate the

popular will behind the programme. We were prepared with Lord Tennyson to await the far-off interest of tears.
And now we have the houses, and it ought to be for everybody—whether he be a Socialist, a Conservative, a Communist or a Liberal—a source of national pride and pleasure to see our people going into decent homes all over Great Britain. It should be a matter of national pride and not party polemics that the men who fought in the war are now living in decent homes more and more and more. I would like to claim that, here and now, as a contribution and an achievement of all the members of the community, no matter to what party they may belong, because this job is a vast job of social co-operation and could not have been accomplished except by all kinds of person in all walks of life. [An HON. MEMBER: "Vermin."] Yes, I do not put it beyond you to promote yourselves in time.
Now the right hon. Gentleman made some references to housing prices. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in what I thought was a most excellent and reasoned speech, dealt with this in some detail, but he appeared to have been unable to make himself clear to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) who speaks with great authority on housing. The point was made—and it is one to which I hope the House will pay some attention afterwards—that housing prices had risen less than the prices of any other finished product. Now this is a most remarkable position. I know it is almost impossible for the Party opposite to believe it, but the fact is that the wholesale index has gone up since 1945 by over 30 per cent. and housing prices by 13 per cent. In other words, that part of the economy which has been under the most direct control and has been most planned is that part of the economy where inflation is least.
I hope that Members opposite will like that. One would have expected a rise in prices because, after all, a house is as my hon. Friend says, an end product. Every single industry in society makes its contribution to the completed house. Yet we have been reproached by hon. Members opposite for this increase. Now indeed it would have been remarkable would it not, if the price of everything that went into the house went up, and


the price of the house went down? But that is what we have been asked to do. I know we have achieved some most remarkable performances but we cannot compete with that. I cannot build houses more cheaply if everything else goes up in price; but what we have succeeded in doing is this: in the actual operation of house building, despite the emotional pressure, despite the public pressure, despite the chaos of the building industry immediately after the war, the rise in house prices is 13 per cent., while the general wholesale price index is up over 30 per cent. That is remarkable.
The hon. Member said that we ought to compare the price of a finished house with the actual final cost. We have not yet got from all over the country sufficient information to be able to make a proper comparison but we have all the relevant figures relating to that 13 per cent. I would like to ask the hon. Member a simple little question so that he may educate me. I know that he knows a lot about the building industry. Take the level of tenders in 1945 and the level of tenders in 1948. It is reasonable to assume that the man who tenders in 1948 will have taken into account the P.C. items he had to find from 1945 to 1948, is it not?

Mr. Marples: I am sorry, I did not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bevan: It is very simple. It happens that a building contractor has a building tender; the price of that tender, we know, is not the price of the house, as the hon. Member has been explaining to us. He has been explaining how peculiar are the habits of the building industry, saying we must not take that as the price of the house because a lot of other things will have to be added. But we shall know what the price of those other items would be—they would be building materials of the same sort and, therefore, the new price in 1948 will have reflected the movement in general of building material prices. If, therefore, it is a fact that between 1945 and 1948 house building prices have gone up by 13 per cent., then that percentage of increase will not be materially different between the finished houses of 1945 and those of 1948. That, I should have thought, is simple logic, and it is necessary to use logic even in the building industry.
I have been asked a few questions about the building of houses in agricultural areas. I would like to have this explained also: will the right hon. Gentleman tell me, if house rents for agricultural workers are so high that they cannot afford new houses, how can agricultural workers buy houses? I would like to know because, apparently, we are supposed to solve the problem of providing houses in agricultural areas by selling half our houses there. How will it be possible? Or do hon. Members opposite wish that most of the houses in the agricultural areas should be built for renting and that the right hon. Gentleman's 50–50 should not apply to the rural areas? I would like to know, because if half the houses which are going to the rural areas are for sale none of the agricultural workers will be in them. Therefore, it is the policy of the Tory Party to deny half the rural houses to agricultural workers. We have had a whole evening's Debate and have not yet been told. I am doing my utmost to elicit this information now.
I am convinced that on this matter of houses the Tory Party should avoid further Debates. We on this side of the Committee, however, although we are not satisfied with the case put by the Opposition, are also not satisfied that sufficient progress has been made in housing, because we know what housing means. We know what a deep tragedy it still is for hundreds of thousands of people in Great Britain. We are determined, therefore, to go on to the utmost, as far as our national resources will allow us to go. Towards the end of the year we ought to be able to get a far more realistic picture of the housing needs of the country.
I would warn hon. Members not to pay too much attention to the housing lists because the housing lists are not now an expression of the housing needs. Those lists are swollen by four factors. One factor is that in London, in particular, and also in some of the other congested areas, an applicant will put his name on more than one list and that causes duplication at once. Then there will be two families living in the same house both applying for a house where one house would relieve the two families. Then there will be individuals in houses merely applying for a council house because they would like to have a council house. That is an ex-


pression of housing desire, not of housing need. Then there is the person who has satisfactory accommodation, but has not taken the trouble to remove his name from the list. Those four factors have swollen the housing lists abnormally. I am going to ask the local authorities at the end of the year, when we have another six months' building behind us, to "vet" their lists, to examine them carefully so that we shall have a realistic idea of housing needs—more realistic than we have now.
I have all along held the view that the 750,000 target was too low. I always said that, and not only recently. The 750,000 target was fixed by the last Government and who am I to disagree with it? I said I would accept that target and by October we shall have achieved it, but we shall not stop building houses. We are going on building and we have decided that we are going to keep 180,000 houses under construction in England and Wales and the rest in Scotland, making about 200,000 new permanent houses in all. But we may not be able to go on at that rate. It depends on a number of factors which we are not able to predict. Therefore, I am

not going to say at this moment how many houses we shall build in 1949 and 1950. All I am going to say is that what we have done is an earnest of the seriousness with which we regard the housing problem. We shall keep 180,000 houses under construction for as long as our resources will permit. Of course it is obvious that we have other things to do as well, hospitals to build, health centres to build, schools to build and many other demands of that sort upon the industry. But as far as we have gone, I say there is hardly an hon. Member in any part of the Committee who would have said in 1945 that by 1948 we would have had this record behind us—hardly any. I am proud of it. I am not content with it, but I am proud of it and I believe that if we have a few more years at our disposal we shall have the best housing record of any nation in the world.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, "That Item Class V, Vote I, Ministry of Health, be reduced by £5."

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 303.

Division No. 260.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lansdale)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'cester)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Gage, C.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Astor, Hon. M.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Baldwin, A. E.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Barlow, Sir J.
Glyn, Sir R.
Odey, G. W.


Baxter, A. B.
Grimston, R. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Beechman, N. A.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Osborne, C.


Bennett, Sir P.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Birch, Nigel
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Haughton, S. G.
Pickthorn, K.


Bossom, A. C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Pitman, I. J.


Bower, N.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Howard, Hon. A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Raikes, H. V.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hurd, A.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Carson, E.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Challen, C.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Renton, D.


Channon, H.
Jennings, R.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Langford-Holt, J.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Scott, Lord W.


Davidson, Viscountess
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


De la Bère, R.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Digby, S. W.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Smithers, Sir W.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Snadden, W. M.


Drayson, G. B.
Low, A. R. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Drewe, C.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Duthie, W. S.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Sutcliffe, H.


Eccles, D. M.
McFarlane, C. S.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Erroll, F. J.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Turton, R. H.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marples, A. E.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fox, Sir G.
Mellor, Sir J.
Walker-Smith, D.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Molson, A. H. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.




Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Mr. Studholme and


White, J. B. (Canterbury)
York, C.
Brigadier Mackeson.


Williams, C. (Torquay)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)





NOES.


Acland, Sir Richard
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Kinley, J.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Kirby, B. V.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Leslie, J. R.


Alpass, J. H.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lever, N. H.


Attewell, H. C.
Ewart, R.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Austin, H. Lewis
Fairhurst, F.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Awbery, S. S.
Farthing, W. J.
Lindgren, G. S.


Ayles, W. H.
Fernyhough, E.
Lipson, D. L.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Bacon, Miss A.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Logan, D. G.


Baird, J.
Follick, M.
Longden, F.


Balfour, A.
Foot, M. M.
McAdam, W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Forman, J. C.
McAllister, G.


Barstow, P. G.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McEntee, V. La T.


Barton, C.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
McGhee, H. G.


Battley, J. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mack, J. D.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Belcher, J. W.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Benson, G.
Gibbins, J.
McKinlay, A. S.


Berry, H.
Gibson, C. W.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Beswick, F.
Gilzean, A.
McLeavy, F.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Binns, J.
Gooch, E. G.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Blackburn, A. R.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Blyton, W. R.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Boardman, H.
Grenfell, D. R.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Grey, C. F.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Guy, W. H.
Mellish, R. J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Messer, F.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hale, Leslie
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mikardo, Ian


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Mitchison, G. H.


Burden, T. W.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Monslow, W.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hardy, E. A.
Moody, A. S.


Byers, Frank
Harrison, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Callaghan, James
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morley, R.


Carmichael, James
Haworth, J.
Mort, D. L.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Moyle, A.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Murray, J. D.


Champion, A. J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Nally, W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Neal, H. (Clay Cross)


Cluse, W. S.
Holman, P.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Cobb, F. A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Cocks, F. S.
Horabin, T. L.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Coldrick, W.
Hoy, J.
Oldfield, W. H.


Collindridge, F.
Hubbard, T.
Oliver, G. H.


Collins, V. J.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Orbach, M.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paget, R. T.


Cook, T. F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Cove, W. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Parker, J.


Crawley, A.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Parkin, B. T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Daggar, G.
Janner, B.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Daines, P.
Jay, D. P. T.
Pearson, A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Peart, T. F.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St Pancras, S.E.)
Perrins, W.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jenkins, R. H.
Popplewell, E.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Johnston, Douglas
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Pritt, D. N.


Deer, G.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Proctor, W. T.


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Pryde, D. J.


Diamond, J.
Keenan, W.
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Dobbie, W.
Kendall, W. D.
Randall, H. E.


Dodds, N. N.
Kenyon, C.
Ranger, J.


Donovan, T.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rankin, J.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
King, E. M.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Reeves, J.







Reid, T. (Swindon)
Sparks, J. A.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Rhodes, H.
Steele, T.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Richards, R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
West, D. G.


Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Swingler, S.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Sylvester, G. O.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Royle, C.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wigg, George


Sargood, R.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wilkes, L.


Scollan, T.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wilkins, W. A.


Scott-Elliott, W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Segal, Dr. S.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Sharp, Granville
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Timmons, J.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Titterington, M. F.
Willis, E.


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Tolley, L.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Shurmer, P.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Wise, Major F. J.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Woods, G. S.


Simmons, C. J.
Usborne, Henry
Wyatt, W.


Skeffington, A. M.
Viant, S. P.
Yates, V. F.


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Wadsworth, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Skinnard, F. W.
Walker, G. H.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Warbey, W. N.



Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Watkins, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Watson, W. M.
Mr. Snow and




Mr. George Wallace.


Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

It being after Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — LEATHER CHARGES (No. 3) ORDER

10.12 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I beg to move,
That the Leather (Charges) (No. 3) Order, 1948 (S.I. 1948, No. 1312), dated 18th June, 1948, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, and Section 5 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, a copy of which Order was presented on 22nd June, be approved.
I am glad of this opportunity of saying something about this order, in view of the fact that, on an earlier occasion when the same subject came before the House owing to an unfortunate misunderstanding, the order was carried without having been discussed. I want to explain how sorry I am that that should have occurred on that occasion, and that it was not deliberately intended.
The principal order, the Leather (Charges) (No. 1) Order, 1947, imposed a charge due and payable to the Board of Trade on all stocks of cattle hides and skins, raw goatskins, rough-tanned kips, tanned goatskins and sheepskins used for footwear, and tanning materials and tanning extracts held by tanners, dressers and tanning extract manufacturers at the

end of 1947. A second order, laid before the House on 19th March, postponed the date of payment of the charges until 1st July, 1948. The principal order was discussed by the House on 13th February, and I do not propose to go over the whole of the ground covered by my right hon. Friend on that occasion. However, I should like very briefly to explain the situation which has given rise to these three orders.
The materials to which I have just referred were sold by the Board of Trade up to the end of 1947 at subsidised prices. As from 1st January, 1948, the subsidies were withdrawn. From that date the Board re-sold native and imported materials without loss, and the leather producers and tanning extract manufacturers were permitted to charge increased prices for their products to cover the increase in the cost of the raw materials to them. This meant that every leather producer's stock of hides, skins, tanning materials and footwear leather, and every tanning extract manufacturer's stock of tanning materials and tanning extracts, appreciated in value to the extent of the increase in price of those materials. Accordingly, when they came to sell the resulting leather or tanning extracts at the new prices, they realised the stock appreciation as an additional profit. As has been said before in this House, this stock appreciation was in the nature of a windfall and accrued, moreover, from the material bought from public money and re-sold at a loss to the Treasury. It was, therefore, decided to


collect it for the benefit of the taxpayer by way of the charge imposed under the principal order, which I have mentioned.
It was, however, realised at the time that leather producers and tanning extract manufacturers might need protection against stock losses in the future. My right hon. Friend indicated in the previous Debate that negotiations with the industry were taking place. Discussions with the trade have now been concluded, and it has been decided to give them the measure of protection which they require by collecting only one-third of the charge and by allowing the remaining two-thirds to be held in a special account by the individual tanner and other people concerned.
There is one exception to the arrangement, namely, tanned skins, where the amount to be collected was agreed with the dressers concerned before the principal order was issued and took into account all the relevant factors. The amount in this case is not affected. Except for this case, therefore, only one-third of the charge now becomes payable to the Board on 1st July, 1948, and the balance of two-thirds will be allowed to be credited by the individual tanner and other people concerned to the special account which he must open called the Leather Charges Order stock reserve depreciation account. An undertaking in approved form must first, however, be given to the Board as to the opening, crediting and debiting of this account together with the deduction of the appropriate tax, and it may then be used for meeting future stock losses as and when approved. This arrangement applies only where the total charge is over £1000. Where it is £1,000 or less, two-thirds of the charge is remitted without requiring the creation of any special reserve.
The Leather (Charges) (No. 3) Order, 1948, brings these modifications into effect by amending the principal order where necessary. There are certain other concessions. Long process material, other than tanned skins, where the material is in process for six months or more, is to this extent removed from charge, and the charge is modified in respect of hides used for leather for exports under contracts made before 1948 and executed before 1st October, 1948, where the price realised is less than the corresponding approved

maximum footwear leather price ruling on 1st July, 1948. The method of calculating the charge for raw hides and skins in process for bottom leather is revised in favour of those processors who are able to identify the stock while in process. The basis for calculating the amount of process stock is also modified to remove any undue hardship in calculating the process stock for those tanners who do not produce the same number of pinned shoulders and pairs of pinned bellies, as they produce sole leather butts or pairs of bends. Finally, certain minor corrections are made in the First Schedule to the principal order.
I am pleased to say that these arrangements have been discussed at considerable length with the trade and have been accepted by them. It is estimated that the total amount of the charge will be about £8,250,000, of which £2,750,000 will accrue to the Exchequer and the balance of £5,500,000, less tax, will represent either amounts remitted or credited to the stock reserve depreciation account to which I have referred. I believe that this is a substantial concession, and it indicates our desire to be fair to the industry while at the same time meeting our responsibilities to the taxpayers. As such, I hope that the order will meet with the approval of the House.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Odey: First of all, let me declare my interest. As a tanner I have a very lively interest in this order, and I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary—and, indeed, the Government—for the fact that although a slight misunderstanding, which we were at great pains to prevent recurring tonight, prevented a discussion on the No. 1 Order, the Government provided time for a subsequent discussion.
The Parliamentary Secretary has explained that this order is really an amendment of the No. 1 Order, which was issued on 30th December, 1947 I have no desire to delay or weary the House by repeating the arguments employed on this side of the House when a discussion took place on the No. 1 Order. The short point is that this order is a great improvement on the No. 1 Order, because under the No. 1 Order the Government took to themselves the power to take the whole of this appreciation, whereas under the present order they have reduced their demands to one-third. The President of


the Board of Trade, when referring to the No. 1 Order on 13th February, said that
it was decided to collect the appreciation in prices"—
which arose from the removal of the leather subsidy—
by statutory order for the benefit of the taxpayer. We realise that the leather producers and extract manufacturers may need some protection against stock losses in future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1948; Vol 447, c. 766.]
Since that Debate there have been, as was envisaged, discussions between the Board of Trade and the industry, and I am happy to say that, as the Parliamentary Secretary has already indicated, this order represents an agreement that has been reached as a result of those negotiations. But the most important point I wish to stress is that the two-thirds of this profit which is retained by the industry will, under this order, be set aside as a stock reserve; and that was precisely the point the industry has endeavoured to make throughout all these negotiations.
I want to make it quite clear that any hon. Members opposite who suffer under any sort of delusion that this was some sort of nest-egg, and that the tanning industry were endeavouring to put it into the pockets of their shareholders, can disabuse their minds of that impression immediately. This money is required to see that when prices fall, the advantage of those falling prices is passed on immediately to the general public. This stock reserve which is being created is intended for precisely that object. Under this order, this reserve cannot be expended until the Board of Trade give approval and the President of the Board of Trade says that a fall in hide prices has taken place, a fall which should be passed on to the general public, for which purpose this reserve has been expressly created.
I must reiterate the point that the one-third which the Board of Trade are retaining for the Treasury has no logical basis whatever. In point of fact the whole of this reserve will be needed, and I should like to explain why. When, eventually, either this Government or some more intelligent Government introduce de-control, the tanner will be called upon to take up the risk of the hides in the pipe-line, and bearing in mind that the tanner always sells on replacement value, he will be expected to reduce his

prices when any fall takes place in the price of his raw materials. He will be expected to reduce his leather prices simultaneously with any drop in his raw material prices, and he will have to carry the risk for the raw materials in course of shipment.
Today, under control, he is able to take over these hides from the Government at a United Kingdom port, but when de-control arrives, he will have to buy his supplies in South America, South Africa or Australia, and will be called upon to carry the risk of a fall in prices while these goods are on the high seas. Therefore the logical thing would undoubtedly have been to place the whole of this amount to reserve. Members opposite should realise that what is involved in this order is the future financial stability of an industry, and that when an industry comes to bad times it is not only the shareholders but the workers who suffer. I hope, therefore, that no one will look at this matter in any narrow way. It would be churlish and possibly verminous not to say "Thank you" for such concession as we have. We have to say "Thank you" for two-thirds of an appreciation which undoubtedly belongs to the industry, but we say "Thank you" gracefully for what is really our own.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Attewell: This order was introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary with apologies for the fact that the No. 1 Order had been carried without discussion. The Parliamentary Secretary gave a resumé of the history of the three orders. I also propose to give the history of the three orders, from the point of view of a back bencher on this side. This order raises an exceedingly vital principle, and a fair amount of money is at stake—over £9,500,000 given in subsidies to a single industry under capitalist control. The hon. Member for Howdenshire (Mr. Odey) has declared his interest, and it would be well for me to declare mine. I am a trade union officer in the industry.
I agree with the hon. Member that this matter involves the future stability of the industry, and I would remind him that he should be able to speak with firsthand facts about an industry that was broken after the first world war. As he


knows, his own business failed to pay dividends for fifteen years following the first world war. The business lost £1 million. The figures I have given were declared publicly at a meeting by the hon. Member for Howdenshire and therefore he can have no objection to my using them. The position today is that both his own firm and another firm were mentioned in the "Financial Times." as having paid a dividend of 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not deal with individual firms, but must get back to the order. We are discussing the order and not matters outside that.

Mr. Attewell: I was attempting to reply to the statement made by the hon. Member for Howdenshire. I am sorry if it is not in Order. The Leather Charges Order was the principal order, and then a second and a third order came along. It is a serious thing that three orders covering the same situation should be introduced within six months. The second and third were introduced because of the pressure of the tanners both inside this House and outside. I do not say that is not permissible.
When we last discussed this matter, the sum at stake was estimated at £8,250,000. What are the actual facts? May I draw the attention of hon. Members to the accounts published on 11th May, 1948? On page 13, under item 32, it says: "Trade Accounts and Balance Sheet, 1946–47—"and this fact has not been mentioned either by the Parliamentary Secretary or by the hon. Member for Howdenshire, and it is important—
The loss of £9,624,403 on trading represents the subsidy incurred under the war-time stabilisation policy, after taking into account a profit of £617,000 on native hides purchased from the Ministry of Food below the prices for imported hides.
This is very relevant, Mr. Speaker, because unless one grasps the whole of this matter one will be led away by the case which has been put here tonight in justification. I maintain that there is no justification. I say that the words which I am going to read show that it was taxpayers' money which was handed to these people. The document says:
Under the scheme for stabilising leather prices adopted in 1942, hides and skins were sold to the trade at prices fixed quarterly in

lieu of trading results with a view to allowing tanners and dressers a profit of 8 per cent. on capital employed.
These periodical adjustments failed to restrict profits to the target figure, and during the first three years of the scheme the excess, by agreement with the trade, was partially recouped by means of retrospective surcharges. If I can interpose again, that adjustment goes to prove that the policy has been to pay back this extra—that is, the large surplus of profit above the 8 per cent. allowed. The document goes on:
In 1945"—
Note the date, and how smartly they got off the mark when the war was about to finish—
the tanners gave notice to terminate the scheme, stating that it was inappropriate for peace time.
This was agreed to by the Government Department, but the trading results continued to rise. Notwithstanding the steady increase in the prices of issued hides, and the increase in overheads, the profit was much above 8 per cent. The profits made by leather tanners at 31st May, 1947, reached 30 per cent. on capital employed. Discussions with the trade took place with a view to reducing drastically the profit margin so that it should conform more closely to the figure of 8 per cent. This is actually in the auditor's report and therefore, although I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, you can see why I was led to take the profits which have been made as some justification, in the face of this particular document issued to this House.

Mr. Odey: Does the hon. Member appreciate that the profits to which he has been referring have nothing to do with the profits which arise under this Charges Order?

Mr. Attewell: I am coming to that. I made it clear that the industry lost nothing whatever up to that date. What is more, I am able to prove that firms were able to form their own private funds. The hon. Member's own firm did. It put £100,000 into a special fund.

Mr. Speaker: The question of a private fund has nothing whatever to do with the order.

Mr. Attewell: May I read from HANSARD the report of the speech of the hon. Member for Howdenshire, because it gives his case, the case of the tanners. Hon. Members


can then compare that case with the case put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary. This is the case which I hope to destroy in a few moments. This speech was made by the hon. Member for Howdenshire on 13th February, 1948. He said:
If, however, this subsidy is paid over by the trade as a result of this order, the industry will, in effect, cease to sell on replacement but will be forced, with the agreement of the Government, on to a cost-plus basis. The net result of this would be that these dear stocks, which stand at an all-time high record for price, would have to be consumed before leather prices were lowered. There is every indication in the United States that the price will fall and that the unfortunate general public of this country will be continuing to pay high prices for leather when they would, in the normal way, have received immediate relief as, and when, the raw hide market declined."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February,1948; vol. 447, c. 760.]
Has the raw hide market declined? It certainly has not and the hon. Member for Howdenshire knows that the "Shoe and Leather Record" has a report of his speech given to a caucus of the Conservative Party only last week or the week before, in which he proved to the hilt that the high prices had not sunk and they were still as high as they were before. Therefore, the fears that the stuff would fall have not materialised, which is vital to remember. Why is it vital to remember? Because this—9½ million, two-thirds of which is to be put into a special fund, is to act as a buffer when the price falls. This was decided on 1st January, and six months have now passed. Almost without exception, every bit of hide that was in at that particular time has now passed through. If we take seven months as the period through which we have to pass, there is only one month remaining before the traders can claim a legitimate right to use this sum as a buffer.

Mr. Odey: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that there is not the slightest prospect of the price falling while the Government operate bulk purchasing conditions.

Mr. Attewell: If that is so, there is not the slightest necessity to give this two-thirds, and that is precisely my case. But let us see what the President of the Board of Trade said in the same Debate. I can understand the President of the Board of Trade not being here tonight, but I think I am entitled to quote what was the opinion of the Board of Trade at that time. Let us see what has caused

the change since the last time we discussed this matter here. The President of the Board of Trade said:
These matters have been fully gone into by our officials and have been discussed on many occasions with the hon. Member and other representatives of the industry.
As an aside, I might say that the hon. Member referred to is the hon. Member for Howdenshire. My right hon. Friend goes on:
These subsidies, as the House knows, were introduced for hide, skins, tanning materials and leather at various times from 1941 onwards to keep down the price of leather for footwear and repairs as part of the general policy of stabilising the cost of living … Since January, 1948, … the leather producers have correspondingly been allowed to charge increased prices for their leather to cover the increase in cost of the raw materials to them.
What did happen? On 1st January the tanners put up the price of their leather to the whole of the boot and shoe manufacturers and repairers throughout the country. When it is remembered that up to 80 per cent. of the leather was subsidised, from 1st January up to now that particular stock has passed out into use with the extra price being charged on it, which, of course, gives an increased profit. That is the point about which I am concerned. It is those six months about which I am talking. What did the President of the Board of Trade have to say about who owned this money. He had no doubt as to who owned it. This is what he said:
This means that every leather producer's stock of hides, skins, etc., will appreciate in value to the extent of the increase in the price of those hides, etc., compared with the previous period. When he comes to sell the resulting leather at the new prices, assuming they are still above those of the earlier period, and these new prices are in course of being checked and are operating at the moment on a provisional basis, this stock appreciation will be realised as an additional profit. I do not think that the hon. Member would disagree when I say that this stock appreciation is very much in the nature of a windfall."—
That is, a windfall of over £100,000. Then he goes on:
I am quite sure the House will agree that I should not be discharging my duty to the taxpayer if I allowed these windfall profits to be retained without question—profits which have been made at the expense of the taxpayer. I think I have made it clear that the money was raised as a result of the appreciation in value of stock paid for with public money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 763–7.]
I now turn to the third order, to which I object, as I have said, because it takes


away two-thirds of the £9,500,000. They have no right to it: they cannot claim it to be used as a "buffer" fund. This is taxpayers' money which is being given to an industry without justification. Moreover, there is another point relating to the question of Income Tax. Here I may be wrong or at fault—if so, I shall be willing to withdraw—but as I see it, the position is that instead of their deducting the amount which should be payable as Income Tax before charging the profits, I understand they will take all Income Tax demands away from the fund before it is split up. If this is so, I think it is wrong; but in any case, I should like the point to be made clear.

Mr. Belcher: Perhaps I might interrupt my hon. Friend, to say that that is the case.

Mr. Attewell: If so, it does not look right to me. It ought to have been deducted as Income Tax in the first place. I appreciate the tolerance of the House and agree that I may have spoken with a little heat and not made myself clear on certain points, but in this particular matter, I feel that the Department have fallen down and I sincerely feel that they have been too generous to the industry and have done more for it than it had a right to expect; for, after all, £9,500,000 is a lot of money.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not for me to defend the Parliamentary Secretary against the attacks of his back benchers, nor to explain why it has taken three orders to enable the Government to arrive at a sensible decision. After all, we have 2,000 orders a year, and for the Government to have reached a sensible decision in three is quite good for them. They have said—and we agree with them—that this sum will go to a stock reserve to be available for use when hide prices fall, and it will, therefore, be of advantage to the tanners, of advantage to their workers, and eventually to the advantage of the consuming public as a whole. We wish that the whole sum had been allowed to be put into the stock reserve. As the Government are only taking one-third of private citizens' profits, we think the trade has not been too bady treated and we do not propose to divide against this order.

Resolved:
That the Leather (Charges) (No. 3) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 1312), dated 18th June, 1948, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, and Section 5 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, a copy of which Order was presented on 22nd June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (STUDENTS)

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Cove: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 29th June, 1948, entitled the National Insurance (Contributions) Regulations, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 1417), a copy of which was presented on 30th June, be annulled.
We are not to-night criticising the whole of these regulations embodied in No. 1417. We are, however, deeply concerned about Regulation 7, which applies to students and those who are receiving training as apprentices. Students who are in school up to the age of 18 will have their contributions credited, but apparently after the age of 18 the National Advisory Committee have recommended, and as far as one can understand the very complicated regulations, and the regulations seem to follow the recommendation, students who are in college and apprentices should have an option to pay or not to pay contributions. By the way, I hope the Minister will be able to persuade the Department to be much more simple in future regulations than they are in these, for I find them and indeed legal experts have found them very difficult to understand. The National Advisory Committee in their report, say that there is a case for the representations that have been made that students over 18 should have the contributions credited. But they say, after admitting that there is a substantial case, that if students over 18 have contributions credited, that may break down what they term the principle of universality. That means, I suppose, in common parlance, that some measure of favouritism will be granted to students over 18 if they have their contributions credited.
I should like to make one or two observations about that. One is, and I think it stands out very clearly, that if contributions can be credited for going to school up to 18, what prevents the prin-


cipal being applied after 18? The principle of crediting contributions has been conceded to those who go to school, and I and my hon. Friends associated with me say clearly and distinctly that, not only in the interest of the students themselves, but in the national interest, students who go to colleges and to the universities should also have their contributions credited. But the principle of universality is broken down by the National Advisory Committee itself, and by the regulations which incorporate their suggestion by the very fact that an option is offered. What does that mean? What it really means in practice is that those students who can afford to pay the contributions will be able to pay and those who cannot afford to pay contributions will not pay. So there, by the very fact that the regulations have embodied this, the principle of option, the very principle of universality and equality for which, I understand, the National Advisory Committee and the regulations stand, breaks down. So that goes by the board.
I am not going to deal in detail with the matter—I am going to leave it with my hon. Friends; we have agreed to a division of labour. I think the Minister will admit that if a student does not pay during his college or university career, and if he marries and dies about the age of 30, considerable disability will be inflicted upon the widow. Her pension will be less. The retirement pension will also be less because of the basis of 50 contributions a year. We stand clearly for crediting contributions during the period of college or university life. It may be said, and I have heard it stated, that an injustice will be inflicted upon other sections of the community. I suppose there must have been actuarial calculations in regard to this class of contributor and it may be said they show that, if these students are credited with contributions during the period of college or university or apprenticeship careers, they will constitute an added burden on the Fund, and that other sections of the community will have to pay for it.
This class of person, and particularly those who go into the various professions will, under the scheme pay for benefits which they will probably never receive. They should pay, but the fact is that a certain amount of the contribution is allo-

cated for unemployment benefit, and this class of person will not suffer unemployment to any degree. They will thus be paying for a benefit which, fortunately in one sense, they will not receive. Then, again, and I take my experience from a very successful approved society—this is a class which brings credit and not debit to the fund. The society to which I refer is the National Union of Teachers' Approved Society, and it was very successful under the old regime. It had magnificent additional benefits; they were some of the finest ever paid by any approved society. That was due to two reasons; there was efficient and economical control, and the incidence of sickness was less. It is clear from my experience that any actuarial valuation must take into account the fact that this class of person brings credit to the Fund and the credits during the period of college or university training mean that, over the long range of years, these people will not be a burden on that Fund.
At this late hour, I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I am not quite clear on one point, and I should be glad if the Minister would say something about it. It is the position of those in the emergency training colleges. So far as I understand, those in the emergency training colleges who have fulfilled certain conditions in the past, will have their periods in the colleges credited; those who come in in the future will not have their credits for that period. If that is so, it seems to me a complete injustice to those who are coming into the emergency training colleges in the future, if only for the reason that a great many of them would have been in the training colleges had there been vacancies. We are penalising these men and women, not because of any fault of their own, but because the necessary accommodation for their training has not been provided.
I am not being nasty with the Minister tonight—we are two Welshmen together—but I hope he will be able to give some indication that the matter will be reconsidered from the point of view of crediting these men and women with their contributions during the period that they undergo training. We are glad to take part in this magnificent scheme. In some respects it will aid professional people like teachers even more than the ordinary working men and women. Take, for


instance, a teacher who breaks down and receives a "breakdown pension" under the teachers' pension scheme. We have always said that has never been sufficient to keep a teacher in a satisfactory standard of living, particularly if the breakdown occurs in middle life. The fact that you can have continuous sick pay thoughout your life, if the conditions are satisfied, is a great advantage.
We appreciate this, and we are proud to join in the scheme, but we do say that from the point of view of individual hardship, not only to the students but also to the working-class parents who make sacrifices to enable them to go to college, these contributions should be credited to them. There is also the national point of view. We shall need an increasing flow of men and women into the colleges and universities, and I hope it will be possible to say that the added burden of paying these contributions will not be a bar to that stream getting wider and bigger. Therefore, in the national interest also, I hope the Minister will be able to consider sympathetically the point we are putting to him.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: I beg to second the Motion.
As my hon. Friend has said, and so far as I understand the regulations—which I agree are drawn in an extemely complicated manner—a full-time student up to 18 will have contributions under the insurance scheme credited to him, but after that age he will have the option of either paying or not paying the contributions. We know students pretty well—most of us have been students in the past—and we are well aware that the young man in the spring-time of life, at the age of 19, thinks the age of 65 is a very long way off, and sometimes in moments of despondency believes he will never reach it. As for the young woman student in college at the age of 19, she is quite certain that a year or two after she leaves college she will be married. If anybody tried to persuade her to the contrary she would regard him, I have no doubt, as a very odious person.
So, undoubtedly, I think that if this option is given to the students in our colleges and universities the majority of them will select the option not to pay the contributions. If they select the

option not to pay they will be considerably endamaged so far as the benefits are concerned, because it is a regulation under the Act that in order to qualify for full benefit a man or woman must have an average of 50 contributions each year for the whole period of contributory insurance.
Take the case of a student who goes to college for two years; and let us say he is preparing to train as a teacher. If he takes the option not to pay the contribution during those two years he will be 104 contributions short. By the time that he arrives at 65 he will not have been able to make up that loss of 104 contributions. He will have only an average of 49 contributions over his contributory period. His pension will not be 26s. a week but 25s. The student trained for four years will be in a worse position still, because he will have lost 208 contributions, and by the time he arrives at 65 he will have had an average of only 46 contributions for each year of his contributory period. His pension will be 24s. a week instead of 26s. a week.
The case, as my hon. Friend indicated, with regard to the widow's pension is still worse. Take a student who spends four years at a university and does not contribute under the option during those four years. Suppose that after he leaves the university he gets married, and dies, let us say, at the age of 32, leaving a widow and a child. Over that period he will have had an average of only 35 contributions for each year, on account of the four years' loss of contributions during the time he was at the university. His widow and orphan will have, instead of a pension of 33s. 6d. a week a pension of 24s. 6d., or 9s. loss per week. So that the students who take the option—and I fear that most of them will—not to pay the contributions will be very considerably endamaged.
As my hon. Friend has said, the nation wants students. We want technicians; we want administrators; we want scientists; we want teachers; we want doctors. The students at the universities and colleges are not merely benefiting themselves: they are also acquiring skills and knowledge and aptitudes which will afterwards, when they practise them, be of benefit to the nation, and will help in increasing the production of the nation. We want to do all we can to encourage students in


college, and to encourage parents to send their children to colleges and universities. I fear that these regulations may be an element of discouragement.
I would point out to hon. Members on this side of the House that it is not the case now, as it was 40 or 50 years ago, that the young men and women at our universities are the children of the comfortably off, wealthy classes. Entrance to universities now is very largely determined by intellectual merit. A very considerable proportion of the students at the universities today are the sons and daughters of the people of the working class. The working miner of today may have a son and a daughter at the university. If he is to pay their contributions during the university period so that they get the full benefits, he will have to pay 4s. 8d. a week for his son and 3s. 8d. for his daughter, in addition to his own weekly contribution. There would not be very much left out of a pound note each week on account of National Health contributions alone.
My right hon. Friend is a Welshman, and a very distinguished Welshman. He has by his life and achievements added lustre to the Principality. May I call his attention to the fact that probably in the whole of the Commonwealth there is no community that has a greater regard for education than Wales? There is nowhere where a working class parent will make greater sacrifices for his childrens' education than in Wales. All we are asking the Minister to do is to make some concession to students. We should like him to credit them for contributions during their college and university training. If he cannot do that, perhaps he can allow them to pay reduced contributions and still remain in benefit. The very least he can do is to adopt some method whereby, if they do not pay contributions, they can make retrospective payments and come into full benefit when their training has been completed. It would be very fitting and proper for a Welshman to make this concession to university students.

Sir Ian Fraser: On a point of Order. It would be very difficult, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the question of overlapping benefits which is the subject of another Motion on the Paper without discussing the credits and the option which perhaps might be said to be more properly

related to these regulations. May I submit that they could be brought in Order on the discussion on the overlapping benefits regulations, which would prevent Members trying to catch your eye on this set of regulations as well?

Mr. Speaker: I confess that anything which would shorten the proceedings at this late hour would have my approval.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: My hon. Friends have made out a very substantial case tonight for the Minister to give further consideration to this question. The House should remember that since 1939, the number of students in the universities and colleges has increased by no less than 100 per cent. This Government has been very generous and sympathetic to students in general. Many students in colleges today are receiving grants of some sort or another and these grants rest very largely on a means test. They are very finely worked out, so that the student finds it very hard to meet his financial obligations. I have students in my constituency who tell me that, in view of the increase in cost of living since the war, they should now have a further increase in their grants.
The National Union of Students has passed a resolution, which has reached the Minister of Education, asking for a revision of grants because the students cannot meet their present obligations. If the Minister is adamant in his proposal that the recommendations of the Advisory Committee shall be carried out, undoubtedly a great hardship will be imposed on a section of our community which is not well able to bear the burden. Many students are receiving no grant whatever owing to the stringency exercised by their local education authority. I have received recently visits from parents who are worried beyond words when the recess comes round, because they cannot find the train fare to bring the students home from college. The Minister of Education, were he able to be with us, would know that this is so He is not unaware of it.
When parents have this financial strain and stress, it is unreasonable to tell them that on top of their present anxiety we are going to put on them the further burden of 4s. 8d. a week, or another £12 or thereabouts a year. The whole essence


Of the National Insurance Scheme is to give security to our people, and this proposal is going to mean a tremendous anxiety to students who ought to be free to get on with the job of studying and not have their work injured by this awful anxiety.
There is a further anomaly to which I would draw the attention of the Minister and of the House. A boy in a secondary school receives credits for national insurance until he reaches 18. The average age of call-up to His Majesty's Forces today is 18 years and nine months and if a parent, being keen to give his son a further chance, says he will keep him on at the grammar school until the time of his call-up, he will have to pay the 4s. 8d. contribution for the boy, who is in the same class, with the same teacher, taking the same subjects as he was before he reached the age of 18. This is an anomaly which I am sure, now that my right hon. Friend is aware of it, he will be as anxious as we are to see removed. The Minister may try to remind us that there are other cases, other hardships, other difficulties which exist under this Act. I beg him not to seek to ask us to let this further hardship be imposed because other hardships have been created. There is no comfort and no solace for people who are suffering, to be told that others suffer as well.
The Minister will know that in the regulations that have been issued credits are given to some people over the age of 18. If a man has already been working and contributed to the National Insurance Scheme, and then undertakes a course of vocational training which satisfies the Minister, he will receive credits. Or if he goes to Ruskin College or Coleg Harlech, he can be credited. But if he is a student who has not yet started to earn his living, he is in an entirely different position. This is a very important matter to thousands of students in the Universities. I ask the Minister to bear in mind especially the case of the parent who has more than one child at the university.
There are a number of people in South Wales who are unable to speak for themselves and it is up to us to speak for them here on the Floor of this House. There are people in industry who are making tremendous sacrifices to give their

children the chance of a university education. I know the sacrifice which had to be made for me to have my chance to go to the university, and I sympathise with those people who have more than one child in college. To tell them that they must pay 4s. 8d. for each child is to add the last straw to the burden. It may mean where another child is coming on, that the parents will say that they cannot afford to send that child to the university. My right hon. Friend, I earnestly hope, will give to the House tonight an assurance that these anomalies will be removed.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: My hon. Friends on this side of the House are as interested as hon. Members opposite in the plight in which students find themselves under these regulations. I will first put part of the case of the Minister for him—not that the right hon. Gentleman is not capable of putting it himself, but I want him to realise that we understand the difficulties facing him. If we start making exceptions in a scheme which the Government have deliberately brought in on a certain date, the responsibility for that scheme being the Government's, it is extremely difficult to make exceptions for certain bodies of people. If we start doing that, the scheme, which is based entirely on the general unity of the population, will break down. I wanted to say that at the start, because I would not wish students to think that one was trying to make a speech simply to gain their favour, and to free them from the contributions and from the realisation that this scheme is one which depends upon universal contributions, without which it will break down.
I would, however, like the Minister to say why in these regulations, so far as I have been able to study them, there appear to be anomalies. Other hon. Members have drawn attention to some of those anomalies as between different types of young people, some of whom, devoting their early work to vocational pursuits, and later to adult educational courses, appear to be treated better than the ordinary student going in for the higher branches of education, whose case ought to be considered. I want to ask the Minister why these anomalies exist, and why those going in for further courses of training are not all treated the same.
My second point has also been touched upon; that is, that undoubtedly the students who quite rightly, as has been claimed, depend almost entirely on State grants and support for their living, are having an extremely difficult time. The difficulty is not over the fees that the students have to pay, but over the living expenses, once they reach the institutions to which they have to go. It is not only the living expenses, but those little extras which make the life of a student possible. It is really very difficult to go through student life, as some of us may remember from our own student days, simply on the basis of subsistence and fees; and some of these young men and women are having an extremely difficult time. Another consideration is that many of these young people are married. Many of us went through our student days in the blissful and happy condition of being single. No doubt we had a very enjoyable time and a great deal less responsibility than some of the young men who have been through the war and are married and have family responsibilities. In that respect, there is a great strain on the students as well as an extra financial burden.
The question arises in face of these two considerations how the Minister should alleviate the position. I think he should examine the point made by the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) in a short but none the less effective speech; and that is to look into the possibility of retrospective contributions being paid by students to make up for the difficulties they have during the time when they are students, at either the training colleges or the universities. If that is actuarially possible, could we have an estimate from the Minister of what it would cost? Alternatively, there was the suggestion of bringing the students on to a par with those who go into vocational training. It is along those lines that some alleviation might be accorded to students.
I must end as I began by saying that the responsibility for this scheme is the Government's. They decided to bring it in on a certain day, and the House, including the hon. Members who support this proposal, voted for it. Thus all of us as Members of Parliament have to remember that we have to face the unpleasantnesses of this scheme just as we

face the benefits. It is in that spirit that we should approach the genuine cases of these students, and help to find some alleviation for them. They have an extremely strong case for alleviation, provided the Minister can do it in fairness to other sections of the community and in fairness to the scheme as a whole.

11.27 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): We have had a very interesting Debate tonight, and it proves very clearly something of which I have been very conscious in the last three years, that there are many difficult problems which have to be faced when one decides—as the House and nation have decided—to establish a National Insurance scheme which is universal in its application. One of the most difficult problems is the problem of the students. May I begin by expressing the hope that none of us in this House or indeed outside it will think it is being called in question whether this Government or nation ought to encourage students. No Government before in this country has done more for students than has the Labour Government in the last three years. However, that is not the problem which I have to face at the moment.
The provisions to which reference have been made in this Debate have received a good deal of time and thought from myself, the Parliamentary Secretary and the officers in the Department. We also have a National Insurance Advisory Committee, the chairman and several members of which have an intimate knowledge of student life and all its problems. They also have given a good deal of time and thought to considering what is the best provision to make for the students. In the course of their consideration of this problem they have had contact with those representing the colleges, universities and education committees, and also with the organisation representing the students and with the National Union of Teachers. So there have been ample opportunities for all the organisations to make oral or written representations to the Advisory Committee. Eventually the Committee submitted a report to me which I have accepted. I want to tell the House briefly why we have accepted the Committee's report and then I want to make a suggestion which I believe will meet the difficulty.
There were three courses open to us in connection with the students. The first proposal was that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), that we should credit them with contributions beyond the age of 18 as long as they were students. The second proposal was to classify the students under the Act as contributors, when they would fall to be classified as Class 3 contributors—that is as not gainfully employed—and subject to the ordinary rules of the Act as Class 3 contributors. The third alternative—the one the Advisory Committee recommended—was that the option should be given to the students while they were students to pay or not.
Let me say a word about the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon. I want him to realise that we have given full consideration to the suggestion that students should be credited with contributions. To begin with, we have decided to credit students with contributions up to the age of 18, and, of course, there are a large number of students up to that age, much larger, in fact, than the number beyond that age. It will be appreciated that, in crediting them up to the age of 18, we are making a substantial concession to the vast mass of the students, most of whom have ceased their student life by 18. In doing this, it must be appreciated that the whole actuarial basis of the scheme is for contributions to be paid over the whole of the insurable life—for men from 16 to 65 years of age, and for women, to 60 years of age.
If we are to allow credits for contributions, then it should be realised that the burden must be carried by somebody else, and that the burden must be carried by the contributors. I put this quite frankly because it is the problem which we have to face. Is this House justified in providing credits out of insurance funds, and, as I am responsible for such insurance funds, am I justified in giving credits to the students if by such action I am going to put a burden on others? Quite frankly, many of the students will be able to bear the burden better than some upon whom it might be placed. That is the position and hon. Members have to realise that if we are to provide credits for persons, such credits must be considered when assessing the contributions.
I have come to the conclusion, therefore, that I should not be justified in giving credits beyond the age of 18. To do that would be to compel us to reconsider the actuarial basis of the scheme, and to increase the contributions. Let us be frank about this; is it fair to make young men and young women who go to work, pay increased contributions in order that others, many of whom are possibly in more favourable circumstances, may be granted credits? I have to be fair to the students, but in being fair to them, I have also to think of others and be fair to them also, and so I decided that I could not give credits beyond the age of 18.
The second alternative which we considered was to classify students as "not gainfully employed" and let them claim exemption under the terms of the Act, if their income was below £104 a year or £2 a week. But it is very difficult to assess a student's income, because the biggest factor is the amount of the grant, and to make such an assessment would be vexatious to them, as it would be vexatious to us; so therefore we rejected it. We came to the conclusion that we ought to give the students the option to pay or not to pay. I appreciate that some cannot pay, but at the same time there are many who can. Many fathers could afford to pay and if they can do so, let them do it. As the scheme now stands, students who do not pay contributions will have their benefits affected later on, because they will not be able to get the life average to entitle them to full benefit—widows' benefits and also other benefits as well may be affected.
I appreciate the point which has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) and repeated by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) regarding retrospective payment. It is a solution of the problem to which I have given some thought myself and, if it meets with the approval of the House, I am quite prepared to consider it. But I should like to consider it with the Advisory Committee, giving the proposal my blessing, and I hope that I shall be able to say that it is also the desire of this House—that is, that we should consider whether the student who claims the option not to pay during his or her student life, shall have the opportunity, once settled in a career,


to make restrospective payments. I am quite prepared to consider that with the Advisory Committee.
I hope that the House will agree to that, not only as a matter of courtesy but so as to seek the help of the Advisory Committee—putting this point to them and asking them to consider which way it can best be worked out. I will tell them it has my blessing and the blessing of the House. In that way a student might exercise his option not to pay, but I hope that many of them will pay. It is better than making a retrospectve payment later on; but if they cannot pay during their student career, then, when settled, they can make retrospective payments and we will seek a way in which they can do it without prejudicing themselves later in life.

Mr. R. A. Butler: We are grateful that the Minister is going to have this matter considered, but I should like to have this point clear: will it mean that the Government's view on this subject will depend upon the report of the Advisory Council or is the Minister giving a decision now? Do I understand that he will await their report himself and then return to the House and give us a decision?

Mr. Griffiths: I shall put it to the Advisory Committee with my blessing. I should like to discuss the matter with them. It is a matter of deciding not merely how it can be done, but how best it can be done. The committee contains members with much greater experience in this field than I have, and I think I should gain by having consultation with them. I am not making a definite decision, but I shall put it to the committee with my blessing and we shall consider it together. If we can arrive at a settlement, I feel it may meet the convenience of the House.
In the regulations we made, as between students and apprentices, students are defined as those who are engaged in study or training for a career—in secondary school or college. Trainees, on the other hand, are those whose education and initial training is over and who, after a substantial period of employment, come back into training under an approved scheme. We have accepted that, where they go to an approved scheme of that kind, we should give them credits, pro-

vided that the scheme is one that the Minister approves. A number of such schemes have been approved. I do not want to read them out now but I can give hon. Members particulars. The particular one referred to tonight is the emergency training scheme for teachers. It is not yet finally decided whether or not this can be approved. It is one of the problems we are considering. I would ask my hon. friends to wait until we can give this further consideration and I will let them know what we have decided.

Mr. Cove: Is it possible for consultation to take place with the Advisory Committee and people outside who are interested in these problems? Will it require further regulations?

Mr. Griffiths: Under the regulations which we are discussing, if the scheme is approved I have power to credit contributions. I have already approved a number of schemes. The emergency scheme for the training of teachers is now under consideration, and if my hon. Friends and others have any representations to make on the matter, I shall certainly consider them. I make no commitment as to approval or otherwise of the scheme—the matter is under consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) referred to Coleg Harlech and Ruskin College. Unfortunately, they cannot go now to the Labour College to which I went. Let me put this one point. Students at colleges such as those are not in the same category as the majority of students. After years of life in industry, these people go as I did, to college, as in the case of those who go to Colleg Harlech or Ruskin College, and they are then "not gainfully employed." They will be expected to pay contributions as such, and these do not include contributions for health benefits; they pay Class 3 contributions, but in their case they will be credited as Class 1 contributions for sickness and unemployment benefit. Subject to the assurance I have given that we will reconsider this matter with the desire to do what is the fairest thing for the students, while bearing in mind that we have other classes of contributors to remember, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (OVERLAPPING BENEFITS)

11.41 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Provisional Regulations, dated 10th June, 5948, entitled the National Insurance (Overlapping Benefits) Provisional Regulations, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 1244), a copy of which was presented on 15th June be annulled.
There is a class of disabled ex-Service men who are unemployable. An ex-Service man in that class is not just unemployed, but is deemed to be unemployable; he is in such a state that he is never likely to find work again. In addition to the war pension, to which he is entitled by Royal Warrant, he is entitled to an extra £1 a week, and that is called the unemployability allowance. This person, under these regulations, is not able to draw the sickness benefit which other people can have in other circumstances for the whole of their lives. He is not able to draw this with full advantage because, immediately he draws it, the £1 a week from the Ministry of Pensions is taken from him. That is what is meant by "overlapping benefits."
Now, there are two solutions I would put forward for these people. One solution would be to allow this overlapping and agree to this disabled person being allowed to join the scheme and pay contributions so that when he becomes 65 years of age, he can take the full 26s. and continue to get the £1 a week. That, it may be considered, would be a fair arrangement. Another possibility would be to give him credits such as those given to students, and the House may well ask, "Is it possible to justify giving him credits?" Well, he cannot ever earn again, and that is implicit in the fact that he is classed as unemployable. He has had service in the Armed Forces, and has, as a result, suffered this severe handicap. He cannot be expected to come into a situation where he would be able to repay. Another reason why he might receive special consideration is that the benefit he is to get by his payment of 4s. 8d. a week is going to be less than that which other people obtain; so much less that it might well be that he would consider it an advantage to stay out of the scheme.
The crofter is to be left out, but there is a temptation to him to come in because though, as might be the case, he can ill afford it, he may say "What shall I get?—I shall get two guineas for myself and my wife in my old age, and if I die there will be a substantial pension for my widow." But under the present arrangement the temptation, or inducement, to the ex-Service man whose situation I have described is not very strong. He will pay 4s. 8d. a week to get 26s. and lose £1 or one could say that he would pay 4s. 8d. to get 6s., whereas the crofter will pay it to get two guineas. There is a great discrepancy that might well be looked into.
To try to meet this difficulty, the Government have said they will allow these ex-Service men to stay out altogether if they wish. What is the consequence of that? Their widows, along with the widows of gypsies and crofters, and a few other exceptionally poor people—and it follows also the widows of those disabled in industry who take the same option not to come in—will be the one group of widows who do not receive a widow's pension but have to go to the public assistance committee. We do not want to create, as the years go on, a pool of widows who are in an invidious position, and particularly we would not like that pool to be the widows of ex-Service men. That, again, seems to me to be a reason for special consideration.
I will turn to Regulation 3 of Part II. There is a small point there that is worth mentioning. What is the justification for the delay of 13 weeks before certain disabled ex-Service men may draw full benefit? Contributions were paid on behalf of most of them while they were in the Forces, presumably they will have been to some training place where they will still have been kept in contribution, and then they go out to a job where they have to wait 13 weeks before they receive full benefit. Why? Can the Minister justify that, or explain it?
May I now direct attention to Regulation 5? Here we have another aspect of this question of overlapping benefits. The previous Government decided, in connection with ex-Service men's children and children's allowances, that an ex-Service man could draw both the children's allowance paid by the Ministry of Pensions and


the 5s. a week general children's allowance payable to all persons, so that a duplication of benefits is there allowed. I think the decision was made by the Caretaker Government, but was implemented by the present Government. As a result, a disabled ex-Service man in the 100 per cent. category receives 7s. 6d. for his first child and 7s. 6d. plus 5s. for his second and all subsequent children.
If he comes into this scheme, whether he be an employed person, a self-employed person, or one of the unemployables to whom I have referred, he will have to pay the same contribution as anyone else, but he will not receive any children's allowance out of this fund. He will be paying the premium but receiving no benefit. As a matter of ordinary, plain equity it seems to me that one should receive what one pays for, and that the principle that he who pays the full premium should receive the full benefit is a sufficiently sound one to justify my argument, without any other argument. But I bring in support of the argument the fact that duplication of benefit has already been allowed. Why should it not be allowed for the first child, the one now left out, in this instance?
One word about the wives. The wife's allowance is not allowed to be doubled either. I claim that on the same principle that the man should get what he pays for, the wife's allowance should be allowed to be paid. If the Minister says that, on some ground of equity or public policy, he cannot do that, then I submit that he ought to charge less premium for those people. It cannot be right to compel one man to pay the same premium as another, and to take away from him some part of the benefit. If the Minister says that some part of the benefit comes out of the taxpayers' pockets and not out of the contributions, that will still leave an inequity in that proportion of the benefit which is contributed to.
I want to say a word about the question of option. All this problem for the unemployable person comes because the option is given to him to stay out. I repeat what I have said before, that while it would be hard to say that I object to the option, I do not think it is the best way of dealing with the matter. I do not want the disabled men to be out of the insurance scheme. There are great advantages for them in it. On the other

hand, the benefits which they get are so much less than the benefits other people get. But it seems wrong to put in their way that temptation to opt out. Therefore, I want to register almost an objection to the option.
I hope that I have shown that some, at any rate, of the provisions of this set of regulations are obnoxious to disabled ex-Service men, because they treat them in a manner which is less generous than that accorded to ordinary persons who enter the scheme. I should like the ex-Service men who are disabled to enter the scheme gladly and willingly. I shall do everything in my power to persuade them to enter the scheme, but I think the terms on which they enter ought to be the same terms as those of other people and not less advantageous than those terms.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to second the Motion.
In my view, these regulations relating to overlapping benefits are peculiarly—and, because of my view of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary,—surprisingly harsh and unfair to the disabled ex-Service men.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): There is a very big improvement on the Coalition Government's White Paper.

Mr. Turton: They are certainly disappointing to the disabled ex-Service men, and will mean that those men will get less than they are getting at present in many cases. Let me, first, take the point in Regulation 3, which disallows the disabled ex-Service man for 13 weeks from getting more than the 100 per cent. disability pension plus the 20s. unemployability benefit. That, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) is unfair because in many cases those ex-Service men will have many contributions to their credit, from the time prior to their service in the Army, and also from the crediting of contributions when they were in the Service.
However, there is an additional inequality I want to bring out. As the regulation is drafted, the 100 per cent. disability pensioner will be at a disadvantage, whereas the man who has an 80 per cent. or less disability will not


be at the same disadvantage. It seems to me to be quite wrong that this particular proviso should hit with special hardship the man whose disability pension is 80 per cent. or 100 per cent.; in other words, the 100 per cent. pensioner will be 6s. worse off and the 80 per cent. pensioner 1s. 6d. worse off. I should have thought that the Minister would not have wished to penalise this particular disabled ex-Service man, the man who has got this high rate of disability pension because of his service during the war. I hope that whatever else he does, he will review the proviso. I believe he would be well advised to cut it out completely, because I think that it is based on a misconception, the misconception that these men were not in insurance before, whereas they were. If he will not remove it entirely, then let him alter it so that it will not put this extra burden on those who have been grievously disabled.
May I now turn to the general question of the widows' and children's benefits? I take the view—and I may be in the minority—that the war pension schemes are not in the nature of an insurance scheme, but are the nation's compensation for the lack of earning power caused by injuries during the war. After all, I listened to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) only half an hour ago saying with pride that the teacher who earned a breakdown pension under the teachers' scheme would draw that in full, in addition to his benefits under the insurance scheme; but when we come to the disabled ex-Service men, we find that they are treated in quite a different way. It is true that after the 13 weeks a man will get both his disability pension and his personal benefit, but look at the position of his wife and children. They will not draw anything more than the National Insurance benefit. Of course, the National Insurance benefit will be greater than the benefit under the war pensions. Therefore, they will be restricted to that National Insurance benefit. I think that is an inequality which neither side of the House should tolerate at the present time.
Look at the other position, that of the man who was probably ordered by the Ministry of National Service not to go into the Forces, but served the country in a

civilian capacity. He earned during the war and saved from his earnings. That man will be able to draw the income from his savings, and, in addition, will draw his personal benefit and benefit in respect of his wife and children. There will be no reduction, in spite of the fact that he has the income from his savings. Why is it that when we turn to the disabled ex-Service man who has not got that income from savings during the war, but, quite the reverse, has lost earning capacity by loss of a leg or arm, we say it would he quite wrong to allow him to get 6s. a week in respect of his wife and in addition the wife's benefit under National Insurance? Surely, we are being mean and parsimonious in adopting that attitude towards disabled ex-Service men of the last war.
I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter. After all, these men who are to be at this great disadvantage are to pay the same contribution. We are asking a certain number of men to pay their contribution knowing that if they fall out of employment or if they get sick, they are not to get the same advantage as the rest of the community. They are to get for their contribution less benefit when the risk eventuates. I thought this scheme was a universal scheme of National Insurance.
I have always taken the view—and everybody in the House takes the view—that it is highly undesirable to have any party warfare on this question of National Insurance. It is a joint effort. I am rather sorry that the Minister tried to make some party capital when I began to speak on this matter. I really want to adopt a common viewpoint on this problem, and I hope the Minister will help us to avoid having to press this Prayer to a Division. I am fortified in that because I notice that these regulations are only provisional regulations, and not like the last, which have been sealed and stamped with the approval of the Advisory Committee. This is a tentative effort by the Minister, I understand, and I hope that when he sends that tentative effort for the consideration of the Advisory Committee, he will add to it his observations on the points we have made here tonight, and that he will suggest to the Advisory Committee that the position of disabled ex-Service men has not been treated adequately in these regulations and requires revision.

12.3 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): First, I should like to say that we recognise the great interest which the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) always shows in these matters particularly relating to ex-Service men, and I should like to pay tribute to the knowledge he has shown in connection with these Regulations, because, frankly, of all the regulations that have come before me in the Department, these are the most complicated and the most difficult. They are difficult and complicated because of the past history of the social services in this country. Each Department has been responsible for its own part of the social services, and these have grown up more or less without any great relation to one another.
Now, when we are bringing in this great, comprehensive scheme, and are trying to relate all the various benefits and social services, it is natural that we should want to look at all these things afresh. If we had started with a clean slate, all this would have been very easy indeed, but unfortunately we had to try to fit all the other schemes into the new scheme. The majority of the difficult problems we have had have arisen in trying to fit the old into the new. It is with that background and within this framework that we have to consider these Overlapping Benefits Regulations, with the idea and conception which has motivated this Government in all the social legislation which has been passed since 1945. However, I think that it should be noted that in the Report of Sir William—now Lord—Beveridge attention was drawn to the fact that some provision would be required so far as overlapping was concerned, and that the Coalition Government White Paper also envisaged quite clearly that some provision would be necessary in regard to the overlapping of benefit.
When the National Insurance Act itself was being considered it is quite clear that, so far as the contributions are concerned, which, of course, are laid down in the Act, due account was taken of this principle of the non-duplication of benefits. At the same time, I ought to say that so far as the disablement pensions are concerned, both for industrial disablement and for war disablement, they are, of course, partly based, as the hon. Member

said, on certain other factors which bring in different principles. Therefore, so far as the disablement pensioner is concerned—both for industrial and war disablement—obviously some special treatment is required.
My right hon. Friend recognised very early that this was a very difficult problem, and quite a number of meetings have been held at Carlton House Terrace with the British Legion and the Trades Union Congress, both separately and jointly. A great deal of consultation has taken place with these bodies, and it was after that consultation that these draft regulations were drawn up. Indeed, these draft regulations, which are provisional regulations so far as this House is concerned, are now before the National Insurance Advisory Committee. I understand that the British Legion and other interested bodies have put forward certain points of view there which no doubt will be considered by that body.
The hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) dealt particularly with the disablement pensioner, and he started by speaking of the position of the disablement pensioner who is unemployed; but I would like, first of all, to deal with the question of sickness benefit and then later I will come to the dependency provisions. The position here is a great improvement on the position before 5th July. There is a tremendous improvement in the position of the disablement pensioner who was disabled during war service. The position formerly was that a disablement pensioner was entitled to half sickness benefit for six months, and afterwards was not entitled to draw sickness benefit until he had made 104 insurance contributions. The position now is that a 100 per cent. disablement pensioner can, having had no work since his discharge, draw 20s. sickness benefit indefinitely. That is, I think, a great improvement on the previous position. If the disablement pensioner has less than 90 per cent. disablement, then there is no reduction in the sickness benefit, and the full 26s. is paid. That is assuming, of course, that he is an insured person. That point must always be borne in mind when discussing these matters.
There is a provision for unemployment similar to that which I have outlined for sickness benefit. In both cases the 100 per cent. disablement pensioner gets full benefit after 13 weeks' contributions have


been paid. There is then a change from 104 weeks to 13 weeks for sickness benefit, although the provision is a new one for unemployment benefit. The reason we have put in this provision for unemployment is quite simple. First, we want to assimilate the conditions for unemployment benefit and for sickness benefit for a very good social reason. In the past men have been tempted to get a doctor's certificate certifying them fit for work merely so as to ensure that they got unemployment benefit at the higher rate rather than sickness benefit. We want to remove that temptation. The hon. Member for Lonsdale asked why 13 weeks at all? That is merely to restrict the rate until the man is really capable of work, because I am sure the hon. Member would recognise that it would be wrong for one disablement pensioner to receive more than another merely by getting a certificate of fitness from his doctor, which that other person was unable to obtain because he was in a worse position. That provision, therefore, is perfectly fair.

Sir I. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman now deal with the question of unemployability allowance, which is a different thing altogether?

Mr. Steele: I know that the hon. Member dealt very fully with that matter, but I am leaving it until a little later.

Mr. Turton: Would the hon. Gentleman deal with the point which I raised about the 100 per cent. pensioner losing 6s. a week, and the 90 per cent. pensioner—I said 80 per cent. but it should be go per cent.—losing 1s. 6d. per week? That is a great disparity.

Mr. Steele: All in good time. I want to deal with the matters in some sequence. So far as dependency is concerned, my first point is that we must recognise that the increase is for dependency. The principle is clear. For instance, under the National Insurance Act, if a dependant is earning then the person receiving the personal benefit does not get the dependency benefit, and so one might say, why not charge a lower rate of contribution in his case? The fact is, of course, that there is an average rate contribution, although the benefits may vary according to individual need. Take the bachelor for instance. He is paying a flat rate contribution at the same rate as

the others, but he does not have dependants.

Mr. Turton: He is always hoping to.

Mr. Steele: And we would certainly not want to take that hope from him. If a man has a dependant and that dependant is working, he does not attract the dependency benefit. The pensioner is in exactly the same position.
I would now like to deal with the question of the unemployability supplement. The first thing that I would like to try to make clear is that this supplement is only provided where for some reason sickness benefit and unemployment benefit is not provided and it is, therefore, an alternative social provision to these other benefits, and the question of duplication does not arise.
Many of the persons receiving unemployability supplement of 20s. a week will have a latent right to sickness benefit from their past contributions or from the credits they have received during military service. If a person is receiving 100 per cent. or 90 per cent. pension, and has re-qualified under the old conditions before 5th July, he can forgo the unemployability supplement and receive 26s. a week sickness benefit. Therefore, so far as he is concerned, he can now get an increase of 6s. As he is also getting credits, he is not required to pay at all. For the person whose pension is less than 90 per cent., and who is insured, irrespective of whether he has re-qualified or not, the sickness benefit will not be affected, but he can get either sickness benefit or the unemployability supplement. A man who has not re-qualified for full benefit can continue on the unemployability supplement.
In all these cases where a man receives sickness benefit or where he continues to receive the supplement, there is no requirement for him to pay. He will be receiving credits under the scheme and these credits will qualify him for the retirement pension of 26s. a week with 16s. for his wife; then, of course, the unemployability supplement is withdrawn. So far as concerns the people who receive the supplement and who were not insured, they have come into the scheme as new entrants. Obviously, if people opt out of the scheme they cannot be entitled to the benefits and people with no insurance record cannot possibly get benefits in this


case. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen will appreciate that at the moment there are between 8,000 and 9,000 war pensioners who are receiving an unemployability supplement. Out of that number I cannot say what proportion will fall into this uninsured group, but it is unlikely to be a high proportion, for many as I say, have insurance rights.
Therefore, I would say that the problem is not as great as one would imagine, and as far as widows are concerned it is true that if the death is attributable to war service, then the widow's pension is paid, but also if it is hastened by war service it can be paid as well. But there are likely to be only a few people, perhaps, involved in this particular case. To put the question as 6s. for 4s. 8d. is, I think, rather wrong, for quite frankly, as I see it, the majority—the vast majority—of those receiving unemployability supplement will not require to pay at all, because they will be getting either sickness benefit or credits under the scheme; but those who are not in this insured class, and especially those who are nearing pensionable age, will be wise to consider this question as far as their payment is concerned, for while it is true they would get 6s. extra because of the unemployability supplement, it is also true that, if married, it will mean not an extra 6s. but an extra 16s.
I have tried to indicate in this complicated subject just how these matters stand, but I may say one word in conclusion—that the whole question of non-duplication is inherent in the Act itself and what these regulations try to do is to ensure that the principle shall be reasonably applied. I think that it has been reasonably applied, and I think in many cases, we have been fairly generous. The National Insurance Advisory Committee, of course, are discussing these regulations at the present time and we will see that what has been said tonight is put before them, and I can assure hon. Members that, when the report is received from the Advisory Committee, the points which have been raised will be noted.

Mr. Turton: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the points we made as to whether the 100 per cent. disability pension is only 6s. and the 80 per cent. nothing?

Mr. Steele: I will deal with it in this way. It is linked up with the 13 weeks.

So far as the re-qualifying period is concerned, once the 90 per cent. to 100 per cent. disability pensioner has had his 13 weeks requalifying period—many of these people will have had the re-qualifying period under the old scheme—once that has been obtained, then, naturally, of course, full re-qualification is also obtained.

12.24 a.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I do not want to detain the House very long, but I think it is right that hon. Members should bear in mind that, under Section 30 of the Act, these regulations regarding overlapping benefits are not compulsory; in other words, the Minister may make regulations dealing with overlapping benefits. So far as I understand it, this means that where there is a justifiable case it is not necessary for the Minister definitely to introduce regulations which avoid overlapping. In fact, there is a permissive Section in the Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) has convinced the House that in these particular cases—the unemployable type of man—there is power for him to be excluded from the regulation altogether. I put this plea very strongly because I think there is nothing more tragic than the unemployable man.

Mr. Steele: So far as that is concerned, there are hardly any cases where this could apply.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am very glad to hear that, but even if there is one case, surely we should consider it. It is for this unfortunate man that I ask the Minister to make an effort to see whether he cannot find a way to let him out altogether.

12.26 a.m.

Sir I. Fraser: I would like to thank the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for the steps they have taken to ascertain the views and contributions which the British Legion and other organisations can make in this matter. I am aware that discussions are going on between the Advisory Committee and the British Legion, and I am very glad that what has been said in the House tonight will be brought to the notice of the Advisory Committee so that the facts may be taken into account. That is satisfactory so far as it goes, but I cannot say that the Parliamentary Secretary's answer


was as satisfactory in some respects. He did not seem, if I may say so, to deny the points which we have made from this side of the House. The hon. Gentleman affirmed and confirmed them, and rather left us with the feeling that there is a small pocket of men who are not going to be well treated, but that there is nothing that can be done about them.
But is it only a small pocket? I think it is not. There is a substantial number of these men who have never attained the position of being voluntary contributors—a right they could have got over the last 15 years. But it took considerable will and some measure or education to know that these rights were available, and of the examples which I have taken, about half have allowed the voluntary contributions to lapse. If it is such a very small number, is not that a very good reason and argument why an exception should be made? I cannot say that I am altogether satisfied with the answer we have been given, but in view of the fact that the matter will come before the Advisory Committee for further consideration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — WORLD FOOD SHORTAGE

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

12.29 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: We have had many apologies for speeches at a late hour tonight, and I will not make another for dealing with a subject which I want to raise after having been lucky enough, to be successful in the ballot. At the outset I want to say that I am sorry the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Summerskill) has been inconvenienced by having to attend the Debate at this hour. I did convey to the Foreign Secretary, who would, I thought, be slightly interested in the subject which I have chosen, my intention to call attention to the warning given by Sir John Boyd Orr on the world food shortage, and the appeal he broadcast recently on his retirement. I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs explaining that this

was really a question for the Ministry of Food. Apparently food is not a subject of very great interest to their excellencies at the Foreign Office, but I should have thought that the wider implications would have been apparent even in those celestial regions, and that they would not have sent a lady to occupy the firing line. I assure the hon. Lady that any criticisms I have to make are not directed against her. I wish profoundly that she was the Foreign Secretary. She would have made a better job of it. I have more confidence in the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, after the opinions she expressed in the Debate this week, than I have in the Foreign Secretary, the Under-Secretary, and the Minister of State who speaks for the Foreign Office, all rolled into one.
This is a serious subject, and I entirely agree with the tributes paid to Sir John Boyd Orr from all sections of the House in the Debate on food earlier in the week. I agree with the hon. Lady's opinion that
Sir John Boyd Orr is not only a great scientist and a great humanitarian, but has been one of our finest ambassadors. It is said that posterity remembers those who benefit posterity. If that is so, Sir John Boyd Orr will never be forgotten."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1948; Vol. 543, c. 965.]
I should not like it to be thought that the appeal made by a distinguished Scotsman, born in the county I represent in this House, would pass without a word of support, and some response, even at this late hour. Sir John Boyd Orr served this country and civilisation in his capacity as Director of the Food and Agriculture Organisation. On his retirement he issued a statement to the Press which must have been alarming and caused great concern to people who look ahead to the future of the world. He said, according to the "Daily Herald":
The world cannot have a third world war and avert approaching catastrophe, too. The whole race is rumbling to destruction. There is only a fifty-fifty chance of getting over the food problem. … The nations of the world are insane, applying their energies to building up a war machine instead of applying their steel and industrial products to conserve the resources of the land. Only diversion of machinery to food production can avert chaos within the next 40 to 50 years.
That is a warning that this Government and others should take seriously when it comes from a distinguished publicist like Sir John Boyd Orr, who has become an international figure and occupies a unique position in international affairs, something


approaching to that of Dr. Nansen after the first world war. It is all very well to pay tributes to Sir John Boyd Orr. I remember that Chesterton once said about Dickens that Dickens would have preferred us to carry on his struggle rather than to celebrate his triumph, especially when that triumph had not yet been achieved. I do not believe that Sir John Boyd Orr will be content to retire into seclusion. Even if he has not won the ears of the Government, and if his words do not influence the Government, widespread public opinion outside is that this man is talking common sense at a time when there is precious little common sense being spoken by our diplomats and statesmen.
He has warned the nations that they are spending too much on armed forces in time of peace. Judging from the figures given us by the Minister of Defence, certainly that criticism applies to this nation and to this Government. Last week we were told that the number of men and women in the Armed Forces of this country now amounts to 931,000; that there is a civilian army of 235,000 engaged in the work of supplying them; and that 1,166,000 men and women are now engaged either in uniform or in supplying the materials of the Armed Forces. At a time when we are warned that we need every available man and woman either in productive industry or in agriculture, these figures are very alarming indeed, from the point of view of the people who look ahead to the economy of this country in the future. This criticism applies to the other nations as well.
With the prospect of a world food shortage imminent within the next decade or so, all the nations are spending their substance in preparing for another war. The advice given by Sir John Boyd Orr to this country applies to other countries—to the United States, to the U.S.S.R. There is no doubt that when a world food shortage looms ahead every possible step should be taken by the nations to come to some agreement by which the productive labour of men and women should be devoted to ensuring the food supplies of the world. I know that we shall be told that we need at present to spend a vast amount of money on the Forces, and to employ this huge army of men and women, because of the danger of war.
I wish to draw attention to the fact that Sir John Boyd Orr urged the Government

to take certain action which he believes may avert the catastrophe of a third world war. We are in danger of war with Russia, and Sir John Boyd Orr has asked us to face it. He has appealed to the Government to make a new approach to Russia, an economic approach apart from the diplomatic approach, to see whether the nations can come to some agreement which would result in a measure of agreement, and in disarmament, which would enable the nations to work together to avert a world famine. Sir John Boyd Orr has told us that unfortunately Russia is not with the F.A.O. He said:
Some say she never will. Have our Government and other Governments done all they can to get her to co-operate? Through trade agreements Russia is sending grain to Egypt and to some European countries, including our own. Eastern European countries, said to be controlled by Russia, are co-operating with the F.A.O. Suppose we try a new approach.
There are those who argue it is no use talking to Russia—that Mr. Molotov always says "No." I have even seen comments in the British Press to the effect that Mr. Molotov is something of a mule. That may be so, but we too have our mules. I have heard it said of the British people that they are lions led by asses, but at the present time it seems to me that the peoples of the world, including ourselves, are lions led by mules. I want an end to the mulishness of our diplomats and statesmen. I want Mr. Molotov and the Foreign Secretary to realise that we want them to say "Yes," and that their foreign policy has led us to this impasse. The peoples of the world are really wanting a settlement of international affairs, and whatever the statesmen may do, the last thing the people, whether they live in Russia, America or on the Continent of Europe, want is war. Sir John Boyd On has suggested that we make an approach to Russia, and he talks in a conciliatory way to Russia. He has said:
Let us give Russia credit for the vast plans she is carrying out to double and redouble agricultural and industrial production, and credit for the great social and welfare schemes she is carrying out. Let us pay tribute to her agricultural scientists who are making the desert flourish and the land within the Arctic Circle grow food.
Amid all the hate and suspicion, this great international figure says:
Let us forget, for the time being at least, the things on which we disagree and give Russia


a cordial invitation to join us and other nations to make the great contribution she can make to a world food plan and put an end to hunger and poverty.
He concludes,
In my opinion, Russia would probably respond to such an invitation if it were made in all sincerity and good will. It is well worth trying.
I believe that from this House of Commons there should be at least one voice to endorse that point of view. If Russia responded, the whole political atmosphere of the world would be changed, and the world food policy would be the beginning of a world peace policy. I put this question to the Foreign Secretary, and I received the usual evasive diplomatic reply. It was suggested that Russia could solve the whole problem if she went to the telephone and said she was prepared to join the F.A.O. I am not arguing for one moment that Russia is not equally to blame for not being in the F.A.O. I think that she would be co-operating with the rest of the world, but this is not the time for diplomatic niceties, when the whole future of the world may be at stake, and as a result of this tension we may ultimately drift into a terrible war. I was criticised in the "Daily Herald" for suggesting that we should make the approach to Russia. The leading article stated that I had asked the Foreign Secretary whether he would consider giving Russia an invitation to join with us and other nations to contribute to a world food plan to put an end to hunger and poverty. These were not just my words. They were the words of Sir John Boyd Orr. The "Daily Herald" commented:
It was a well-intentioned question, posed in misleading terms.
It proceeded, of course, to give the official praise to the Secretary of State and said that the Secretary of State pointed out these facts in reply to the Member for South Ayrshire, that Russia could become a member of F.A.O. simply by picking up the telephone. The conscience of the editor began to trouble him and he went on to think. He added:
However, we cannot help wondering, since Russia has persistently refused to pick up that telephone, whether it might not be worth F.A.O.'s while to give her a ring.
I suggest it would, and that we should be prepared to take the initiative. We should be prepared to ignore the diplo-

matic techniques, not to worry whether we upset the conservatively-minded people at the Foreign Office, but be prepared to take this initiative on the lines Sir John Boyd Orr suggested. The "Daily Herald" went on to say that perhaps it would be a good thing if the F.A.O. were to send this invitation to the U.S.S.R. and suggested that if all the nations would combine it would be a good thing. Now, there are 56 nations in the F.A.O. Are we to wait for every one of these small nations to come to an agreement that this course is desirable before this Government takes action. Have we to wait for Portugal, Paraguay and Peru? Is there to be a veto of small countries as well as great Powers?
I make bold to make this statement, with the hope it will be conveyed to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, that it would be a good thing if Sir John Boyd Orr were sent on a special mission to Moscow, to see whether Russia could be persuaded to come back to F.A.O. with the purpose of co-operating in the world food plan that Sir John Boyd Orr suggests. I wish to point out that at moments of crisis we have ignored the diplomatic technique. There are cases when we did not send the conventional ambassadors to other nations. There was the case during the war when we sent Sir Stafford Cripps to Moscow. There was the case when we sent Sir Samuel Hoare to be our ambassador in Spain. And I believe that these diplomatic actions were justified.
I believe if we were to do that at this time and were prepared to say we are desperately anxious that the tension between ourselves and Russia should end; if we were prepared to make the economic approach to Russia, then this action would he justified. I appeal to the Minister to present this point of view to the Government. I only wish, in conclusion, to make this final quotation from a lecture that Sir John Boyd Orr gave to the University of London—the Sanderson-Wells Lecture:
The only hope of avoiding war is to get the two great modern Powers to agree to co-operate on something. To co-operate on a world food plan to which both can contribute so much offers the best chance of establishing contact and joint action. Is there no way that the British Commonwealth might be the means of getting agreement on a world food plan and by doing so supply the moral leadership which a frightened and bewildered world so urgently needs.


I believe that in this House of Commons there should be a voice arguing that this Socialist Government should take the lead to get an international policy. I urge that there should be another attempt made to approach the Soviet Union. We should say to the Soviet Union: "We want you to co-operate with us in a world food plan." If we do that, we can yet save civilisation from the frightful possibility of the catastrophe which would inevitably come to civilisation in the event of another war.

12.50 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I have stood at this Despatch Box on many occasions and defended the policy of my Department. I have been subjected to attack by many hon. Members. But tonight I find myself in a most unusual position. The hon. Member has raised a subject on the Adjournment which he tells me has nothing to do with my Department. In fact, he is sorry that I am here, and has said that he would like to have seen a Minister from the Foreign Office here; and he charges my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary with putting a poor helpless, defenceless little woman into the firing line. I am almost embarrassed. I can tell the hon. Member that I cannot imagine the Foreign Secretary wanting to hide behind my skirts. I must remind the hon. Member that it is scarcely a compliment to me to suggest that perhaps in this House people pull their punches when they address me, and that perhaps I have to pull my punches when I return their attack. Nothing of the sort happens, I hope. I would find it exceedingly embarrassing if I were not allowed to hit back in the same way as I have to take punishment.
The hon. Member will agree that it would be quite improper for me to encroach upon the province of my right hon. Friend. I came here tonight pre-

pared to explain to him how my Department had tried to implement the policy of the F.A.O. But again, I say that he has not attacked us, or criticised us. I think he knows that I am second to none in my admiration of Sir John Boyd Orr and his work. I had sat at his feet for many years before he became what my hon. Friend describes, quite rightly, as an international figure. The hon. Member suggests that Sir John Boyd Orr should go to the Soviet Union to put our point of view in regard to our attitude to the F.A.O. I must remind the hon. Member that when he speaks of the Soviet Union, he is talking of a great Power covering one-sixth of the world's surface and having a strong government of intelligent men. He must remember that in 1943 the Soviet Union were represented at the Hot Springs Conference and that in the next year, I think it was, the Soviet Union took part in another important Commission formed to draw up the constitution of the F.A.O.; and that in 1945 they sent an observer to the first meeting of the F.A.O. They knew that membership was open to them and that they had only to apply and to agree to accept the constitution.
I find it very difficult to believe that a government which has refrained from taking action in that way, although it is fully aware of the aims and objects of the F.A.O. and of its constitution, would respond to the pursuasion of even a man as great as Sir John Boyd Orr. Certainly I should like to think it would do so, but I am a little doubtful that the Soviet Union will change its mind so easily. But I can assure my hon. Friend that I will convey to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary everything that has been said tonight and I am sure he will treat it sympathetically.

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes to one o'Clock.